Rushed Leases, Job Losses, Higher Rents: The Inevitable Fallout of Bill H.336

A new bill in Massachusetts, H.336, proposes to restrict landlords and their agents from when they can require a lease to be signed. The exact language is "A lessor, or agent thereof, of a residential property shall not require the signing of a lease more than three months in advance of the termination date of the current lease." At first glance, this might seem like a tenant-friendly initiative. However, a closer look reveals serious unintended consequences that would disrupt the housing market, hurt renters, and wreak havoc on property operations across the state— particularly in Greater Boston. (see bill here: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H336)

A Threat to Boston's Rental Cycle

Greater Boston operates on a leasing cycle that has served MA well for over one century. In fact, they're decades old black-white newspaper articles than can be found on micro-film in Boston Public Library that talk about the Boston 9/1 apartment leasing cycle. The leasing cycle in Boston gravitated to 9/1-8/31 fixed term one-year leases because it was the most logical path based on a number of factors inherit to Greater Boston. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that over 200,000 college students arrive each year around 9/1 to start school.

In fact, if you didn’t notice all the U-Haul trucks and the endless articles about the free furniture on the 9/1 “Allston Christmas” now being rebranded into the 9/1 “Boston Christmas” – it would mean you don’t live, nor understand Greater Boston. For countless decades, roughly 70% of leases begin on September 1st, and both tenants and landlords have relied on advance planning—sometimes up to nearly one year in advance —to secure or prepare housing units. By limiting lease commitments to just three months before move-in, this misguided bill would have catastrophic effects for any and all parties involved in trying to obtain or rent apartments in Boston. There are very few benefits that would come with this absurd restriction and the costs far outweigh any semblance of making life better for the consumer.

Instead of an orderly and professional flow of leasing activity throughout the year, most renters would be forced into a very narrow window between June and August to search, apply for, and finalize their leases. This creates a horrible bottleneck and would overwhelm the entire apartment rental market. In addition, there would never be enough real estate agents to show that many properties in that short of period of time. There are simply not enough hours in the day for anyone to work in a professional manner and chaos would ensue. Paperwork would turn into a hurried disaster and numerous mistakes would occur regarding the lease, lead-law and addendums.

What Legislators Need to Know

There are many reasons why slew of inventory starts to arrive for 9/1 from February through April, and it is important for our legislators to become of aware of these reasons. Nearly all college students, young professionals and families like to begin their housing search much earlier than 90 days in advance so they are not burdened or stressed by having to make last second decisions. Nothing could be worse for renters to have to make a rushed decision that doesn’t fit their needs because of an unnecessary compression of a normal leasing cycle that works throughout the entire year. Our legislators have failed us terribly by not reaching out to: MA State Licensed Brokers, Landlords, Property Managers and the general public to weigh in on the economic, emotional and financial impacts of this ill-conceived bill. To our knowledge and belief; not one real estate professional or housing provider was contacted for input in the crafting of this bill.

If this bill were to pass it would cause a tremendous amount of stress and ill will between landlords/property managers and tenants. Landlords would have to ask their tenants to endure a ridiculous number of showings in a compressed time frame – this would cause severe tensions between landlords and their tenants. Showings would have to start earlier in the morning and later into the evening because everything and everyone would be rushed- creating a hectic environment. Tenants would feel that their privacy is being violated because showings would be intense and disorderly especially as it gets closer to the expiration of the lease.

Unintended Chaos for Renters

Contrary to the bill's apparent goal of protecting tenants, it would actually make apartment hunting far more stressful and expensive. Imagine tens of thousands of renters—students, families, professionals—all competing for the same properties within the same few weeks. The result? Bidding wars, inflated rents, and a sharp increase in "sight-unseen" leases where tenants sign without ever visiting the property. The entire leasing process could have the potential of becoming an unmitigated disaster with unnecessary additional legal liabilities created through errors of quickly processed paperwork. Many renters and landlords would be unsatisfied with hastily generated paperwork and lawyers could find a field day in small technical errors in leases and associated paperwork. How does litigation and chaos benefit anyone?

This is especially problematic for students, families, and international renters who typically secure housing well in advance due to academic calendars or visa logistics. Forcing them into a rushed search would increase financial burden, elevate risk of financial scams/Identity theft, and reduce access to suitable homes. It would be safe to assume that once criminals realize that chaos and rental desperation will become amplified due to a short leasing season- they will hone in and increase more scams. Nothing is worse than seeing people move to Boston only to realize they have been scammed and don’t have an apartment. There is simply no viable and meaningful reason to create compressed leasing cycle at all. The risks to renters are simply too great.

Disproportionate Harm to Families and Students

Families relocating to Massachusetts, particularly from out of state or overseas, need time to plan. School enrollments, job changes, and moving logistics are complex and usually arranged six months to a year in advance. Shrinking that planning window to 90 days creates uncertainty and limits their ability to make informed decisions. Parents will be particularly stressed and this could lead to poor job performance for weeks if not worse. Many renters may experience renters' remorse due to their quick decision and want to break their lease. Lease breaks are a time consuming process that can also cost money and create serious stress for all parties involved.

Similarly, nearly all college students secure their housing before the spring semester ends. This is pure common sense as students want to focus on their studies and generally never like to look during midterms or finals. The majority of our over 200,000 college students do not reside in the state of MA and most return home when the semester ends. If forced to wait until summer, many would need to juggle disparate apartment searches while managing internships or travel, likely relying on third parties or taking expensive trips into the city just to secure housing. For our government to say that it is concerned about affordable housing and high cost of living in Boston – this bill demonstrates the exact opposite narrative. Nearly all students finish their classes in May – but this bill would essentially force them to go home and come back to find housing – which could tally into the thousands of dollars.

Pressure on Real Estate Professionals

Licensed rental agents, many of whom work year-round to support the local housing economy, would face an unsustainable workload under the proposed bill. Compressing nearly 12 months of leasing activity into a short 12-week window is not only unrealistic—it’s unworkable. The result would be widespread burnout, loss of income stability, and a dramatic shift in how these professionals are able to operate. There is the potential of turning highly established and credible real estate organizations with impeccable track records into hectic disorganized companies that could quickly go out of business.

This bill would effectively turn fully engaged real estate professionals into seasonal workers, forcing them to rely on a narrow summer leasing rush for the bulk of their annual income. Would the state be responsible for providing them with jobs for the other 9 months of the year? Such a shift would devastate livelihoods and threaten thousands of jobs that are currently vital to the Massachusetts economy. Skilled leasing agents who depend on steady, year-round work would either be forced to leave the industry or seek additional employment to make ends meet. Future real estate agents would not enter into the profession as they would view this instability of a feast or famine cycle as an inferior career path. With less people entering the real estate marketplace – that would cause additional strain on showing and renting properties. Landlords and property managers would also lose money on poor oversight of leases due to the frenzy of renting too many units too fast. Some apartments might not be accounted for which could cause financial harm and lead to less options.

This all means lower service standards, less oversight, and a higher risk of poor outcomes for both renters and property owners. It’s a recipe for increased housing instability, not less.

Burden on Landlords and Property Operations

Currently, through standard industry practices for decades, property owners and managers find problems and potential improvements needed when they begin showing their properties for rent. During those months when real estate professionals are showing, many provide important feedback and property owners are able to optimize and mediate any problems in a timely manner. Many early discovered problems are time-consuming work, but manageable, if detected early enough. If the leasing cycle is condensed, the property maintenance that is found could become burdensome in a lesser amount of time. To operate under extreme pressure will likely lead to increased costs and a reduction in the quality of apartment preparations.

Contractors, too, would charge premium rates to handle the seasonal rush, and property managers would need to hire temporary help or pay significant overtime. These increased costs inevitably get passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. Many landlords and property managers have said that there are simply not enough contractors and handymen around the MA area that could help prepare that much work in a short period of time. Landlords need time to do longer better resource planning and having longer lease renewal times; this also assists with better maintenance and panning effectively.

Loss of Flexibility and Market Efficiency

One of the most damaging aspects of the proposed bill is that it strips away flexibility for all parties. Renters who want to plan ahead lose the ability to do so. Landlords who want to line up responsible tenants early are prohibited from doing so. Agents trying to maintain year-round income are cut off from a predictable, steady workflow. The more you think about this bill – the more you realize how toxic it is and how much damage it can create. Many real estate companies have said this bill could force them to close their doors. Job losses could be severe and the real estate licensing board might have to alter its practices and allow for unlicensed agents to show properties just to fill the void. This already happens in other states where there is a need for leasing agents. Showing safety could deteriorate and theft could increase with unlicensed agents.

This rigid approach doesn’t promote fairness—it creates far more disorder and economic hardship. The current leasing system, which is often throttled by constraints from a lack of housing inventory, functions efficiently because it allows flexibility, gradual decision-making, and mutual planning. This bill would replace all that with chaos and congestion.

Conclusion: A Well-Intentioned Bill with Harmful Consequences

While the goal of tenant protection is a noble one, this bill completely misses the mark on how Massachusetts' rental market operates. Massachusetts is a state like no other. The number of universities, visiting students, families, the best medical options in the nation, makes this market extremely specialized. Restricting lease signings to within three months of move-in would not level the playing field but distort it and create far ranging issues from: higher costs, lower service, increases mistakes, more lawsuits and strained landlords/tenant relationships. Families, students, & professionals alike— even the most prepared renters would be left scrambling, while landlords and agents struggle to keep up. The real estate industry would also suffer job losses which would lead to less experienced agents and perhaps more unlicensed agents which would introduce a whole new negative set of unnecessary variables that would not be there otherwise.

Rather than imposing an arbitrary deadline, lawmakers should seek solutions that promote transparency, reduce fraud, and ensure housing access—without sabotaging the systems that keep the market functional. This bill, as written, does an order of magnitude more harm than good.