Committee hearing draws widespread opposition to bill authorizing municipal rent control

Lede: The House Committee on Municipal Government and Housing on April 2 took testimony on House Bill 5954, a measure authorizing the City of Providence to enact local rent regulation or stabilization. Testimony was heavily weighted against the proposal.

Nut graf: Witnesses including local landlords, the Rhode Island Coalition of Housing Providers, the Rhode Island Builders Association, property managers and municipal officials warned that rent control would reduce investment, shrink available rental stock and push owners to sell buildings rather than continue to supply multi-family housing. Opponents urged alternatives to protect tenants—targeted rental assistance, production of new units, and stronger tenant protections enforced via existing statutes—rather than broad rent caps.

Major themes from testimony - Investment and supply: Property owners and managers said rent control discourages investment in maintenance and new development. Several witnesses described steep increases in property taxes, insurance, energy costs and construction inputs that drive operating costs; they argued a cap on allowable rent growth would make it difficult to maintain older multifamily housing and to finance new construction and conversions. - Owner-occupant and small-owner impacts: Multiple ‘‘mom-and-pop’’ providers said the policy would hit small scale, owner-occupied landlords particularly hard and urged any statute to avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on small owners. - Just-cause eviction concerns: The bill as drafted included elements that would limit grounds for nonrenewal. Housing providers argued that restricting the ability to remove problematic tenants could increase turnover for good tenants, make management more difficult, and ultimately degrade housing quality. - Alternatives urged by witnesses: Many presenters favored targeted approaches—expanding rental assistance, funding ADU/production incentives, improving tenant legal aid and making the permitting system faster—rather than a rent-control regime.

Notable testimony: Several witnesses described actual hardship from hiking operational costs and how that had forced modest rent increases; others noted that deed-restricted and subsidized rental programs are governed by other rules. Opponents said municipal tax and fee policy changes, as well as incentives for additional supply, are more effective long-run responses.

Sponsor perspective: The bill’s sponsor said the measure is intended to give Providence a local option to protect rent-burdened households; she described the proposal as an enabling step for City Council action and stressed it would not be enacted at state level without municipal initiative.

Next steps: The committee heard a broad show of opposition and requested additional data on local effects and exemptions. Members encouraged stakeholders to propose concrete alternatives that preserve rental supply while protecting tenants.

Ending: The committee did not vote on the measure; members asked for follow-up information and pro formas showing likely local impacts before any committee decision.