Talk:Rent control in Massachusetts

I'm questioning the neutrality and reliability of some of these references

This article makes heavy use of references to rentcontrolhistory.com, a seemingly-authoritative site maintained by Mass Landlords, Inc, a trade association which represents the interests of "Landlords, Property Managers and Investors". For instance, "Renters who needed to move couldn't qualify" is referenced nine times throughout the article, "Rent control boards stopped improvements and basic repairs" is referenced seven times, and "Towns lost tax revenue" is referenced six times. Given that an interest group comprised mainly of landlords and rental investors has huge material incentive to disseminate information in opposition to rent control generally and within Massachussetts particularly, I'm extremely dubious of these references' neutrality with regard to the subject. Moreover, the frequency with which these references are cited calls into question whole sections within this article, namely those entitled Urban blight and decrease in rental units, Rent controlled units went to the rich, and Racial disparities; there may well be others which likewise fail to stand up to scrutiny.

Beyond their evident material bias, which I contend disqualifies these sources on grounds of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, rentcontrolhistory.com is also not particularly scholarly or well-cited. For instance, [8] is given as evidence of a correlative link between rent control and racial discrimination targeting Black renters in Cambridge. However, the reference in question asserts "unfair differences in credit scores, criminal enforcement and eviction impact" between Black and non-Black renters -rather than merely rent control as policy intervention- contributed to Black tenants' under-representation within the market for rent-controlled units, an acknowledgement this article conveniently fails to mention. This same reference is likewise used earlier to contend that "20 percent of all rent controlled apartments housed the rich", a fact we as readers are apparently meant to interpret as a failure of rent control. This conclusion, however, is a mischaracterization of the findings of the survey in question, which actually concluded that more than 20% units were headed by -among others- doctors, architects, and graduate students. Putting aside the character of the phraseology used, which tends more towards emotive than substantive, the unspoken assumptions laden within this deliberate misunderstanding are that 1) employment in these professions necessarily make one "rich" and 2) that the occupation of the head of a particular household necessarily reflects upon the class status of all other occupants. This rhetorical slight-of-hand is extended as the section in question goes on to name-checks three historical occupants of rent-controlled units in Cambridge: a judge, a mayor, and a Danish prince; the reader is ostensibly meant to conclude that because three powerful, wealthy individuals occupied rent-controlled units at one time, rent-controlled units overwhelmingly "went to the rich" and the policy is therefore a failure writ large.

When viewed as a whole, I assert that use of rentcontrolhistory.com should be struck from this article on the grounds of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Getabucket (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to the topic of rent control, I would agree that Mass Landlords clearly has a distinct point of view. However, this does not make them unreliable. See WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your point in the abstract, I'd argue that because of the myriad faulty premises borrowed directly from rentcontrolhistory.com in order to bolster the case against rent control, we can safely conclude that this resource is not being cited in the pursuit of building a plurality of viewpoints on the subject, but is instead intended to conduct an ideological hitjob.

You've also failed to address any of my other points. Getabucket (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, what I mean is this: Mass Landlords, Inc is entitled to their opinion; however, this article makes extensive use of this resource, often borrowing language directly from a trade group we've agreed is hardly neutral with regard to rent control. While WP:BIASED of course permits non-neutral sources (no source of information is neutral, after all), their persistent and often direct and unedited usage throughout this article evinces a bias against rent control which I believe contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Getabucket (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Echoing this -- this is evidently not a balanced article. Much of the history provided merely repeats talking points of campaigns against rent control during and since its enactment in 1970. They surely merit mention but little else is discussed. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:F0B3:A003:8BA9:2250 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)