Last Cast Letter #34: Mamdani's Impact on Massachusetts

Hi All - Happy Saturday. It’s the last day of the month, which means it’s time for the Last Cast Letter.

Political wins are tricky to understand in the immediate aftermath of an election.

We focus on the personalities, the rhetoric, the headlines. But elections aren’t about the candidate alone.

They’re about which problems resonate most clearly at a given moment in time, and which solutions feel emotionally satisfying, even if their long-term consequences remain unclear.

(Sidenote: isn’t this what being a good salesman/woman is about at the end of the day?)

That’s why Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City deserves further examination in terms of its impact beyond the Big Apple. A closer look confirms that it already offers a preview of where housing politics across the country may be heading next.

Mamdani didn’t win by campaigning on abstract ideology.

He won by making one argument, over and over again: New York City has become unaffordable.

Housing, specifically, sits at the center of that crisis. 

Rent stabilization, tenant protections, and caps on housing costs weren’t side issues. They were a large part of the message.

That message worked. And now, versions of it are spreading.

Massachusetts, one of the most educated, highest-income, and politically engaged states in the country, may be the next major test case.

Housing advocates in the Bay State collected more than the necessary amount of signatures last November to place a local option rent control measure on the ballot this upcoming fall.

Interestingly enough, Mayor Michelle Wu opposed the initiative.

Regardless, the state is poised to answer a question that extends far beyond Boston or Cambridge:

If affordability wins elections, how far will voters go to enforce it?

Affordability Has Become a Political Superpower

Affordability has always been on the ballot box in some way, shape, or form. But over the past few years, it has become thee issue.

One of the most visible expressions of the affordability crisis is housing. Healthcare has gotten expensive too, but not everyone goes to the doctor every day. Childcare is pretty insane in a lot of places, but not everyone has a child.

Having somewhere to sleep every night is kind of like step 1 in life. That, and putting food on the table. Which is also why the cost of food, groceries, eggs, etc., is also getting a lot of scrutiny. Hence, Mamdani’s city-owned grocery store idea.

But if we stick with housing for a second, rent is paid every month. It spiked in a lot of places during COVID. And unlike healthcare or education, it’s hard to delay or ignore. When rents spike, people feel it pretty quickly. When they stagnate financially while housing costs rise, frustration compounds fast.

This isn’t a left-wing phenomenon or a right-wing one. It’s structural.

Even at the national level, Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign leaned heavily on the language of affordability.

Energy costs, inflation, household expenses, housing supply constraints. Different tone, different solutions, same underlying appeal: life is getting too expensive, and someone needs to do something about it.

That’s the common thread. Voters aren’t rewarding ideology, they’re rewarding perceived responsiveness.

Housing has simply become the clearest battlefield.

Why Housing Became the Flashpoint

Every economic cycle has a pressure point. Right now, it’s housing.

Homeownership has drifted further out of reach for younger households. Renters face year-over-year increases that outpace wage growth. (Rents have been slowing in large parts of the country, but still, if you look at where we were just 5-6 years ago, we’ve seen a big increase in desirable living locations.)

Even high-income professionals feel boxed in, earning more on paper while saving less in practice.

People can downgrade cars, cut travel, and change consumption habits. They can’t opt out of shelter. They can move, which they’re doing. But moving is a pain in the ass and expensive.

That makes housing uniquely political.

Rent control and rent caps thrive in this environment because they offer something rare in modern policy debates: immediacy. They promise relief now, not after a multi-year supply buildout or zoning reform. For voters under pressure, immediacy matters more than efficiency.

Which brings us to Massachusetts.

The Upcoming Bay State Brawl

When rent control resonates in a place like New York City, critics often dismiss it as a New York City problem. Too dense. Too progressive. Too unique.

Massachusetts doesn’t carry the same baggage.

It’s a state with world-class universities, globally competitive industries, and some of the highest household incomes in the country. It’s also a state with severe housing constraints, rising rents, and intense pressure in urban and near-urban markets.

A rent cap ballot initiative in Massachusetts isn’t emerging from the fringes. It’s emerging from the middle, supported by voters who feel economically squeezed despite doing “everything right.”

That’s what makes it powerful.

The housing advocate group I referenced above, Homes for All Massachusetts, “gathered over 124,000 signatures — nearly 50,000 more than what they needed,” according to WBUR.

Now, Massachusetts is pretty liberal, but still. If a rent cap passes in the state, it will be harder to argue that rent control is only viable in deeply progressive big cities. Other liberal cities and states will be inspired.

The Second-Order Effects Few Campaigns Emphasize

Here’s where things get complicated, and where the investor mindset matters.

Rent control policies tend to produce clear short-term winners: existing tenants in covered units. That’s not controversial. The controversy lies in what happens next.

Over time, rent caps can discourage new development, particularly in already constrained markets. Capital seeks predictability. When returns are capped but costs aren’t, investment flows elsewhere.

Maintenance quality often declines, not out of malice, but math. Margins shrink. Deferred repairs accumulate. The housing stock ages.

Most importantly, rent control helps current renters. Future renters, those moving into the city later, often face higher prices, fewer options, and tighter competition.

The political risk is that voters experience the upside immediately while the downsides emerge gradually, diffused across time and geography.

Here’s more context from Housingwire, which I think is well written, highlights how Massachusetts already tried this approach (and repealed it), and links it back to New York City:

Why Massachusetts Matters Nationally

Massachusetts sits at the intersection of credibility and constraint.

If rent control fails in a deeply progressive city, it’s dismissed as ideological overreach. If it passes in Massachusetts, it becomes proof of concept.

National housing debates don’t hinge on extremes. They hinge on bellwethers.

And Massachusetts is one.

A successful ballot initiative there would signal that affordability politics can override traditional concerns about market efficiency, even among voters who understand the tradeoffs intellectually.

That’s the shift worth watching.

This Isn’t Just About Housing

Housing policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It shapes migration patterns, labor mobility, tax bases, and long-term growth.

States that suppress housing supply risk slower economic expansion. States that fail to address affordability risk social and political backlash.

Rent control sits at that crossroads, offering relief on one side and friction on the other.

The deeper question Massachusetts voters may be answering later this year isn’t whether rents should be capped. It’s whether protection should take precedence over production when scarcity dominates.

That question will echo far beyond state lines.

What to Watch Between Now and 2026

If you care about where housing policy is heading nationally, Massachusetts deserves close attention.

Watch the language of the ballot measure, how flexible or rigid it is. Watch who funds the campaign. Watch how developers respond. Watch how the media frames early data.

Most importantly, watch suburban voters. They’ll decide whether this remains a city-centric experiment or becomes a statewide mandate.

Final Cast

Mamdani’s win wasn’t about New York City. It was about timing.

Affordability has become the organizing principle of today’s politics. Housing is its sharpest edge. And rent control, once considered a blunt instrument, is gaining legitimacy not because it’s perfect, but because it feels decisive and immediate.

Massachusetts may soon tell us whether that decisiveness is enough to outweigh the tradeoffs.

If it is, don’t expect the experiment to stop there.

As always, send any thoughts, ideas, or articles my way.

In the meantime, if you’re interested in investing alongside us, click the button below and fill out our form.

— Brooks