So much of the housing crisis debate in Massachusetts has been centered on what to build and where.

Many towns are opting in to the MBTA laws commonly referred to 3A while others are rejecting the law and continuing the debate. What is missing from the conversation is who we are building for. Tenants make up a significant portion of the state’s population – roughly 37% of households across Massachusetts — and in Boston, that number rises to 65%, with nearly two-thirds of residents renting their homes.

Homeownership remains out of reach for many, especially communities of color.  For example, only 38% of  Black households are homeowners and 33% of Hispanic households are homeowners, while 70% of White households are homeowners. These disparities reflect lasting impacts of systemic barriers, from exclusionary zoning to the racial wealth gap, that continue to shape housing access across the state.

As we continue to talk about where and how to build, we must also center renters in ongoing housing debates. I’m proud to introduce two provisions: banning broker’s fees and an alternative payment plan to security deposits that could potentially cut upfront costs for tenants in half.

Banning forced broker fees helps – not hurts – our housing market.

Massachusetts is on the cusp of delivering a long-overdue win for renters. After years of sky-high upfront housing costs – including first month’s rent, last month’s rent, a security deposit and a broker’s fee – the FY26 budget includes language that finally bans the practice of forcing renters to pay broker fees – unless they are the ones who hire the broker. It’s a simple principle: you pay for the service you request. And starting this August, it will be law.

As one of the legislators who filed this language in January and a shepherd of this provision in the Affordable Homes Act (AHA), I’m proud to see it become a reality so quickly. It’s a reminder that when we prioritize our people, we can act with urgency and impact.

Let’s be clear about what this change does and doesn’t do.

It does stop the unjust practice of shifting broker costs onto tenants who had no say in hiring a broker. It does put money back in renters’ pockets, sometimes over $3,000 worth. And it does not increase rent prices.

You may have heard that if tenants don’t pay broker fees, landlords will just raise the rent. But let’s think about how the housing market actually works.

Rents are already priced at what the market will bear. If landlords could charge more, they already would. The idea that broker fees are somehow holding rent prices down is just not true. In reality, these fees add to the overall cost burden on tenants, forcing people to take on debt, delay moves, or accept worse housing just to avoid extra expenses.

Let’s look at the facts.

After New York City’s broker’s fees ban went into effect this year, Boston took the lead of the #1 most expensive city in the country to rent. The presence of broker fees didn’t hold Boston’s rents down—it helped push them up.
Boston is the last major city in the U.S. to get rid of this outdated and unjust practice. With this new law, we’re catching up to what should be the standard everywhere: fairness and transparency in housing costs.
Security deposits could be replaced by insurance payments.

Brokers’ fees reform isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Massachusetts Legislature is also exploring alternatives to security deposits, another heaping upfront cost. Pending regulations, we are proposing systems where tenants and landlords could enter an agreement where the tenant pays a small monthly premium on a rental insurance plan instead of putting down thousands of dollars upfront.

This is a practical, renter-first solution that recognizes the reality most working families face: the issue isn’t just rent, it’s the upfront costs that are keeping people out of housing opportunities. Safeguards for this provision are being worked out to ensure that the tenant has a choice, that the tenant does not overpay, and that the landlord has to give a copy of the insurance policy. In this case, the landlord would be the beneficiary and would use the premium for lost rent, attorney’s fees and actual damage – which can add up to much more than one month’s rent.

Housing is a fundamental right, and our laws should uphold that principle. Combined, these two provisions would allow tenants to begin a lease by paying only first and last month’s rent — an important step toward affordability and stability for renters across the state.

Sen. Lydia Edwards is the state Senator for the Third Suffolk District and Former Chair of the Joint Committee on Housing.