With rising housing costs, limited supply and evolving state policy, housing continues to be one of the most important issues for Massachusetts voters. In the upcoming election cycle, how candidates propose to address housing — from zoning reform to affordability initiatives, rental protections, development mandates — will be a key differentiator. This article first lays out how we gauge housing market and policy trends (in the style of key metrics), and then dives into the candidates, what they’re saying on housing, and what that means for voters.
How We Gauge Trends: Key Metrics
To understand how housing policy proposals stack up, and how the market is functioning (and where policy needs to intervene), we apply a suite of metrics analogous to what mortgage analysts might use — adapted to housing-sales, rental, zoning and supply. These help us assess whether policy is keeping up, where bottlenecks exist, and how election-year promises align with market realities.
Housing Application / Purchase & Rental Demand
– Purchase mortgage originations: How many home-purchase loans are being originated in Massachusetts (both conventional and government-insured). A healthy housing market shows robust loan origination growth.
– Rental-market applications: In the rental market: how many leases, how many applications, and how many rejections or withdrawals? Rapidly increasing rental applications (with flat or falling supply) may signal affordability stress.
– Home‐buyer program uptake: Government-backed housing-assistance programs (first-time-buyer incentives, state-subsidised loans, voucher programs) – how many are being applied for and approved? Policy effectiveness is partly measured here.
By tracking these, we ask: is demand growing faster than supply? Are prospective home-buyers or renters hitting financing or application barriers?
Processing Times / Closing Times (for Purchase/Rental Transactions)
– For home purchases: the time from contract to closing (including loan underwriting, zoning/inspection approvals, title work). Longer times may signal regulatory, financing or supply-chain stress.
– For rentals: the time from application to lease commencement. Delays may indicate landlord hesitancy, regulatory hurdles, or inspection/permit backlogs.
– For state housing programs: the time from application to commitment or subsidy disbursement.
If these timelines stretch, potential buyers/renters may drop out, search for alternatives, or face higher cost.
Delivery Bottlenecks / Underwriting or Permit Backlog
– Are lenders, title companies, inspectors, appraisers, or local permitting offices facing backlogs? In housing policy, we might track how many developments are waiting for zoning decisions, inspection approvals or subsidy commitments.
– For rental construction: Are permitting delays or labour/material shortages delaying unit delivery?
– For affordable housing programs: Are sub-grantees or local governments backed up in processing?
Backlogs reduce effective throughput of supply or demand, contributing to slower market dynamics or longer wait times for housing.
Sector Segmentation – Conventional vs Subsidized, Rental vs Ownership
– Ownership market (conventional purchase) versus subsidized home-ownership (state/local programs) versus rental market (market rental, affordable rental, vouchers).
– Some segments may be more exposed to policy/designated-funding risk (e.g., affordable rental units reliant on tax-credit financing).
– Candidate proposals often differentiate: increasing ownership pathways, boosting rental stock, or both.
By segmenting, we can see which policy proposals target which sector, and whether bottlenecks or gaps exist in particular segments (e.g., rental affordability).
Regional or Municipal Variation
– Within Massachusetts: coastal metros, suburbs, exurbs, rural western towns all behave differently. Supply, zoning, land-cost, hazard risk (flood/wildfire), and migration patterns vary.
– Localities reliant on legacy zoning or facing anti-growth sentiment may be slower to adopt new housing.
– Candidate policy may affect municipalities differently: e.g., enforcement of state zoning mandates, incentives for “MBTA-commuter” communities, rural legacy communities.
By tracking regional variation, we can assess whether state-wide policy is flexible enough for local nuance.
Secondary Market / Investor Confidence & Financing
– For rental housing: are investors/developers confident in Massachusetts’ housing-policy climate (zoning certainty, incentives, tax-credit performance)?
– For housing supply: financing flows (construction loans, tax-exempt bonds, LIHTC) matter — if policy uncertainty deters investors, supply growth suffers.
– Candidate policy commitments (or threats of rent control, zoning rollback, tax changes) can influence investor appetite.
Confidence and capital availability can accelerate or dampen supply growth.
Policy/Agency Announcements / Temporary Waivers
– State legislation or regulation affecting housing (zoning reform, tax incentives, rent-control moratoriums) are critical.
– For example: the state’s enactment of the MBTA Communities Act (requiring more multifamily housing near transit-served cities) is a major policy lever.
– Candidate proposals often include waivers, mandates or new programs; tracking these signals how policy may shift.
By monitoring policy announcements, we can anticipate how supply/demand and market structure may change.
Putting it all together
When we track these metrics in tandem we ask:
Are closings (or leases) being delayed?
Is supply (ownership or rental) lagging behind demand?
Are policy or zoning constraints slowing unit delivery?
Are financing/ investment flows healthy or under stress?
Are candidate proposals aligned with where the market bottlenecks are?
The housing market doesn’t change overnight, but effective candidate policy will reflect these structural challenges — and voters should evaluate proposals against these metrics.
Candidates & Where They Stand on Housing
In Massachusetts’ upcoming election cycle (notably the 2026 gubernatorial race and related races), several candidates are already staking out housing-policy positions. While this article cannot cover every candidate in every race (state legislature, municipal), we’ll focus on the most prominent statewide contenders and their housing stances.
Mike Kennealy (Republican candidate for Governor)
Background
Mike Kennealy served under Governor Charlie Baker as Secretary of Housing and Economic Development. He launched his GOP gubernatorial campaign in April 2025.
Housing Policy Highlights
On his campaign website and in news interviews, Kennealy emphasises affordability broadly, with housing as a critical element. He argues: “We simply don’t have enough housing” and asserts that his predecessor administration’s strategy (and by extension the current one) has been flawed.
Key specifics:
He criticizes the MBTA Communities Act as “top-down mandates” and says he would end the era of state-imposed mandates on municipalities, instead giving cities and towns “the tools they need” and cutting burdensome regulations. Mike Kennealy for Governor
He emphasizes speeding up development: “We will make it easier, faster, and more cost-effective to build…” Mike Kennealy for Governor
He frames housing affordability in tandem with energy and taxes: lowering costs across the board. CBS News
He emphasizes a partnership model with municipalities rather than a punitive or lawsuit-threat model. For example, in a local media profile he notes “Our zoning reform, Housing Choice, reflected … we must make it easier for cities and towns to produce the housing they want.” The Lexington Observer
Implications & Observations
Kennealy’s housing policy focuses heavily on supply growth, regulatory reform, and local control. He emphasizes cutting red tape, reducing development cost and giving flexibility to municipalities. This aligns with metrics around delivery bottlenecks, permit/closing times, and supply side constraints. For voters concerned about slow unit delivery, high prices and tightly constrained markets, his focus may appeal.
However, his less-emphasized areas include rental affordability/equity (less talk of tenant protections or rent-control), and less emphasis on targeted subsidies for lower-income households (though affordability is his stated priority). For segments of the market facing financing or underwriting bottlenecks (e.g., first-time buyers, government-insured segments), voters will want to scrutinize whether his reforms cover those specifics.
Brian Shortsleeve (Republican candidate for Governor)
Background
Brian Shortsleeve, a former MBTA chief administrator under Gov. Baker, announced his candidacy for governor and frames his campaign around fiscal reform, cost of living and local control. WBUR+2Brian Shortsleeve for Massachusetts+2
Housing Policy Highlights
From his campaign materials:
He describes Massachusetts as “one of the most expensive states to live in” and pledges to “restore fiscal sanity.” On housing, he frames the problem as “housing crisis” but emphasizes that the solution isn’t one-size-fits-all mandates imposed by Beacon Hill. Brian Shortsleeve for Massachusetts+1
On the MBTA Communities Act: he pledges to scrap or replace it with “incentive-based approach” rather than mandates. Quote: “Massachusetts is facing a housing crisis, but the solution isn’t to force one-size-fits-all mandates on our cities and towns. That’s exactly what Beacon Hill has done with the MBTA Communities Act.” Brian Shortsleeve for Massachusetts
He also emphasizes reducing costs (taxes, utilities) as part of housing affordability, and opening up state-owned land for housing in communities that “need and want it.” Brian Shortsleeve for Massachusetts+1
Implications & Observations
Shortsleeve’s housing position overlaps with Kennealy’s in terms of emphasizing local control and reducing state mandates. He places less explicit emphasis on subsidized housing or affordable rental units; instead, his narrative is about cost-of-living, supply growth and letting communities choose their paths. For voters focused on broad housing supply and lower costs, he offers a clear alternative to more regulatory-heavy approaches.
For segments concerned about rental protections, affordability for low-income renters or state-led subsidy programs, his platform may raise questions about whether targeted assistance will be prioritized.
Maura Healey (Incumbent Governor)
Background
Governor Maura Healey (Democrat) is expected to seek reelection in 2026. While her housing platform is not as explicitly packaged as her challengers’ given her incumbency, her administration’s housing policies and reforms provide context for evaluating challengers.
Housing Policy Highlights
Key housing-policy elements during her term:
She inherited the MBTA Communities Act zoning mandate framework (requiring municipalities within transit zones to permit multifamily development) and is continuing its implementation.
Her administration has emphasized affordable-housing production, inclusionary zoning, making state lands available for housing development, and strengthening tenant protections (in some cases) though specific campaign-level housing-platform details may still emerge.
For example, state-wide ballot initiatives touching housing (e.g., rent-control proposals) are moving forward during her administration’s term.
Implications & Observations
As the incumbent, Healey’s housing policy has more status-quo weight. Voters will judge her on results: Are housing-unit targets being met? Is affordability improving? Are processing/permit times improving? Are renters stable or still under pressure? Her challengers are positioning themselves as corrective alternatives particularly on affordability and local control.
For voters, her re-election bid will likely hinge on how they perceive whether housing supply and affordability have meaningfully improved under her tenure — and whether her policy approach is “balanced enough” for their local context.
Where the Candidates Depart — and What It Means
Having outlined the major candidates and their housing stances, let’s compare how they diverge — and link back to our metrics framework.
Mandates vs Local Control
Kennealy & Shortsleeve emphasize reducing state-mandated zoning or housing requirements, favoring giving municipalities tools rather than imposing mandates.
Healey’s administration has embraced stronger state-level mandates (via MBTA Communities, inclusionary zoning, etc).
Metric connection: If municipalities face slow zoning or permitting bottlenecks, state-level mandates may speed supply; if local opposition or capacity constraints are strong, offering tools rather than mandates may help. Voters need to weigh whether their local municipality has capacity and will to act.
Supply & Development Speed
Kennealy emphasizes making construction “easier, faster, cost-effective.”
Shortsleeve emphasizes opening state-owned land for housing and removing cost burdens.
Healey emphasizes production of affordable housing and implementing transit-area zoning.
Metric connection: Focus on delivery bottlenecks, permit closing times, supply growth. An effective policy for speeding up supply addresses all parts of the pipeline: zoning, financing, inspections, construction. Voters should ask: Which candidate has detailed mechanisms to address those bottlenecks?
Affordability & Rental Market
Kennealy: emphasizes affordability overall, but less emphasis (so far publicly) on rental-market protections (rent-control, caps) or deep subsidy programs.
Shortsleeve: focuses on affordability, cost-of-living and supply, but likewise less emphasis on rental protections in early messaging.
Healey: has a broader portfolio of housing production and renter-protections policy (though challengers claim her results are weak).
Metric connection: For renters, metrics would include rent-growth, number of lease applications vs availability, share of rent-burdened households. Candidates whose policies address rental dormancy vs ownership imbalance matter. Voters in high-rent‐stress markets (like Boston or Greater Boston) should examine which candidate emphasises rental protection, supply and affordability.
Targeted Assistance vs Broad Supply
Kennealy and Shortsleeve lean more toward broad supply growth and general cost reduction.
Healey’s administration includes more targeted housing programs (affordable housing units, inclusionary zoning, state subsidy).
Metric connection: Some segments (low-income renters, first-time home-buyers, subsidized housing) face distinct underwriting or financing bottlenecks. A candidate who addresses these could help in these segments. Voters in those segments should ask: Does the candidate have explicit plans for subsidies, financing, and assistance?
Investor Confidence & Financing
All candidates implicitly affect investor confidence: e.g., if rent-control is on the table, developers may balk; if zoning mandates increase risk, cost may go up.
Kennealy & Shortsleeve signal reduced regulation and more flexibility — potentially positive for investment.
Healey’s approach emphasizes regulation and mandates (which some developers cite as cost pressure).
Metric connection: The ease of financing and development flow affects how many units get built and at what cost. Voters should consider which candidates offer policy certainty and maintain investor/developer engagement.
Emerging Ballot Initiatives & Housing Landscape
Separately, there are citizen-led initiatives that may influence any administration’s housing policy landscape: for example, the ballot measure process in Massachusetts is showing up more housing-related items. Notably, an initiative to allow local rent control or cap annual rent increases at 5% or inflation has cleared a first hurdle.
This means whichever candidate wins will likely contend with these citizen-driven mandates or referenda — so voters should think about how a candidate would deal with them.
What Voters Should Ask & What to Watch
Questions for Candidates
Supply metrics: What is your target number of new housing units over the next X years (ownership + rental) for Massachusetts? How many units should the state commit to annually?
Permit/approval time: How will you reduce the time from zoning submission to building permit to occupancy? What specific steps will you implement?
Rental affordability: What is your plan for rental-market stress? Do you support rent-control, annual increase caps, or more supply? How will you address rent-burdened households?
Affordable housing production: How many deeply-affordable units will your administration produce? What financing mechanisms (state funds, tax credits, bonds) will you use?
Local vs state role: How much control do you believe cities/towns should have vs state mandates? How will you help municipalities without local capacity scale housing production?
Investor/financing certainty: How will you preserve and improve investor confidence in housing development (including affordable housing)? Will you encourage public-private partnerships?
Ballot initiative response: With citizen initiatives (e.g., rent increase caps, zoning referendum) on the horizon, how do you plan to manage them? Will you support or oppose them?
Regional equity: How will your housing plan address disparities between Greater Boston, inner suburbs, exurbs, rural western Massachusetts? Are there region-specific targets or support?
First-time buyer and subsidy programs: What specific assistance will you provide to first-time buyers, low-income households or HUD programs?
Metrics & accountability: How will your administration measure progress (units built, time to permit, rent-growth, affordability indexes) and hold itself accountable?
What to Monitor
Time to permit/closing: If permit backlog or construction delays linger, candidate supply-growth claims may be less credible.
Rent growth & supply growth: Is rent increasing faster than incomes? Are more rental units coming online?
Participation in affordable housing programs: Are take-up rates increasing, or are there blocks in financing/subsidy delivery?
Local zoning adoption: Are municipalities complying with stimulus or mandate programs? Are there legal challenges?
Developer/investor activity: Are housing starts and construction financing trending up or down?
Ballot measure traction: Are initiatives like rent-caps gaining signatures/support? Do candidates have coherent responses?
Regional divergence: Are housing conditions improving evenly across regions or are some markets being left behind?
The Massachusetts housing challenge is multi-dimensional: high land and construction costs, restrictive zoning, regional variation, affordability pressure, investor/financing constraints, and rental/ownership imbalance. In the upcoming mid-term/statewide election cycle, housing policy will be a major battleground.
The major candidates offer differing philosophies:
Kennealy emphasizes regulatory relief, local control and speeding supply.
Shortsleeve emphasizes lowering cost-of-living, local control and opening state land for housing.
Healey, as incumbent, has emphasized production and state-led mandates (zoning, inclusionary housing) and will run on achievements plus future plans.
For voters, assessing candidates’ housing plans through the lens of the metrics above (supply throughput, permit times, affordability outcomes, regional equity) may provide a sharper lens than broad slogans alone. Because housing affects both ownership and rental markets, and is deeply intertwined with local zoning/municipal capacity, financing flows and policy certainty — candidates who show detailed, credible plans and measure progress likely will be the ones best equipped to deliver.
