A potential ordinance that would cap annual rent increases at 10% of the base value was on the agenda of the Standish Town Council workshop on Tuesday, Jan. 28.
The idea of a rent control ordinance was originally brought forward by a resident at an Ordinance Committee meeting in late 2024. There, the committee decided that it would be best for the council to discuss the ordinance, which was modeled after a similar one in South Portland, in the form of a workshop, where members of the community would be able to weigh in on the changes.
The ordinance would apply only to landlords with more than 11 units, including owners and affiliates. Properties with fewer than 10 units, as well as short-term rentals, residential care facilities and housing overseen by government agencies, would be exempt from the ordinance. As written, this ordinance would not be enforced by the town, but rather would serve as a defense of a tenant in court should their landlord act in violation of the ordinance.
Many of the residents speaking at the workshop were from the Pine Tree Estates mobile home park. One resident said that he did not see any provision that would cover people like him, who own the unit, but not the land the unit is located on. Planning Director Zach Mosher responded that the ordinance covered the mobile home park as one or more rooms, including a building, physically located in the town and used as a residence under a rental agreement.
Another Pine Tree resident, who was the one who initially brought up the ordinance, noted that the initial request was to cap rent increases at 5%. She also wondered if, while keeping a hard cap of 10% for most properties, there could be an exemption for the mobile home park, noting that their current incoming rent, $890, was higher than any other mobile home park in Southern Maine.
Other residents backed her up, with one saying that, though the 10% increase may not seem like a lot to the town government, it would force several people in the largely impoverished Pine Tree Estates to make tough choices. Another said that her rent had increased by 36% since she moved to Pine Tree in 2019, and if the rent continued to increase at that rate, she would be forced to choose between retirement and selling her home.
Others, particularly landowners, expressed their reservations about the ordinance. A representative of the Rental Housing Association of Southern Maine, an affinity group for landlords, stated that his organization’s position was that because the town didn’t have data about how many rental units are in town, they lacked the data to provide the context for this ordinance. While the RHA is opposed to rent control as a policy, they did support the process of putting the ordinance up to public discussion, and encouraged Standish to count all of the units in town so they could have an idea of how much of the town’s housing stock would be affected.
Council member Robert Deakin asked if anyone in the RHA had thought about limiting increases to the current inflation rate or cost of living. The representative responded by noting that Portland’s delayed model was based off of the cost of living increases in Boston, and that Standish’s fixed number was more feasible for the town.
Another landowner spoke in opposition to tying the rent increases to inflation, noting that increasing the rent at the Federal Reserve’s ideal inflation rate, 2%, would mean she would be unable to maintain her property. Meanwhile, a local Certified Public Accountant said that she was opposed to rent control because she believed it would decrease supply and increase demand for rental units, and result in lower-quality housing options because landlords will compensate for reduced income with reduced repairs and maintenance.
After members of the public spoke, council member Philip Pomerleau expressed his opposition to a blanket 10% cap, instead saying that the town should focus more narrowly on the plight of the Pine Tree Estates residents, whom he predicted would be paying more than $2,000 a month in 10 years should the rent increase 10% a year.
Deakin said that the cap should be associated with cost of living and the consumer price index, rather than arbitrary benchmarks such as 5% or 10%, while council Chair Brandon Watson, a landlord himself, was concerned that setting a fixed number would force landlords to go up by that percent every year.
The discussion ended with the council agreeing to send the issue back to the Ordinance Committee.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can modify your screen name here.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.