A proposed ordinance would publicly identify property owners who repeatedly violate housing codes and could restrict their ability to do business with the city. The measure addresses a familiar problem for renters: paying for housing they have little power to make landlords maintain.

A tenant reports mold in an apartment. The landlord promises to address it, but weeks pass without a repair. Another renter spends the winter dealing with unreliable heat, while someone else discovers that a leaking ceiling has become a recurring problem. Filing a complaint may produce an inspection or a fine, but that does not always mean the repair gets completed. Boston City Council members want to change the consequences for property owners who repeatedly ignore those obligations. As Samantha Genzer reported for Boston.com on October 22, city officials are considering a proposal that would publicly identify some of Boston’s worst-performing landlords and make it harder for them to continue doing business with the city.

The proposed ordinance, introduced by City Council President Liz Breadon and Councilor Brian Worrell on October 21, would establish a public list of landlords with repeated housing-code violations, unpaid fines and other documented failures to comply with city requirements. A points-based system would use information from Boston’s Inspectional Services Department, including housing and fire-code violations, rental registration compliance and unresolved fines. The city would publish the list twice annually. Property owners who qualified for inclusion could face additional inspections, higher penalties and restrictions on city grants, zoning relief and certain development approvals. The proposal has been referred to the Committee on Government Operations and has not become law.

Boston’s rental market makes the proposal especially consequential. According to reporting by Jenna Caldwell for The Boston Report, approximately 64% of Boston households rent their homes, based on Census Bureau figures covering 2020 through 2024. The median gross rent during that period was $2,147 a month. Renters can spend a substantial share of their income on housing while having limited authority over the conditions inside their buildings. They can request repairs, document violations and seek enforcement, but the owner generally controls when maintenance work is authorized and how much money is spent completing it.

Housing-code enforcement is supposed to address that imbalance. Cities establish minimum standards, inspect properties and penalize violations. Yet fines can become another operating expense when property owners repeatedly fail to comply. A landlord who delays repairs may retain money that would otherwise have been spent on maintenance, particularly when enforcement is slow or penalties are limited. Boston’s proposal attempts to change that calculation by connecting a landlord’s compliance record to other financial and development opportunities. A property owner seeking city assistance or approval for another project could face consequences for unresolved problems at existing properties.

Breadon told Boston.com that landlords frequently hold the “upper hand” in rental relationships. Her proposal would give prospective tenants access to information that can be difficult to obtain before signing a lease. A public record of repeated violations could help renters evaluate properties and identify owners with histories of neglect. It could also make landlords more responsive to complaints if continued noncompliance threatens their business interests. That approach has precedents. Chicago maintains a building-code scofflaw list, while New York City publishes information identifying landlords associated with significant housing complaints.

Public disclosure, however, creates its own enforcement responsibilities. A fair system would need to distinguish isolated violations from repeated neglect, account for whether problems were corrected and provide a process for owners to challenge inaccurate records. Inspection data also depend on what gets reported and documented. Buildings whose tenants are reluctant to complain may appear to have fewer problems than properties where residents regularly contact inspectors. A list built around complaints and violations will only be as reliable as the enforcement system producing the information.

There is also the possibility that some landlords could attempt to recover higher compliance costs through rent increases or reduce investment in properties they already consider financially marginal. Those outcomes are not established consequences of Boston’s proposal, but they are worth examining as the ordinance moves through committee. Strong enforcement would need to ensure that tenants receive repairs without being punished for reporting unsafe conditions. That requires clear rules, accessible complaint procedures and consistent follow-through when violations are confirmed.

The proposal has attracted support from most of Boston’s City Council, but its effectiveness will depend on the final ordinance and how aggressively the city enforces it. Publishing names may influence landlord behavior, particularly among owners who depend on city approvals or public funding. Others may have fewer reasons to respond unless fines and repair orders are consistently enforced. If Boston adopts the measure, its greatest test will be whether tenants see faster repairs and safer homes, rather than simply gaining a new database of problems they already know exist.