Boston— The Small Property Owners Association (SPOA) is warning that a proposal circulating within the City of Boston to more than double the property tax rate on large or “luxury” apartment buildings would have severe negative consequences for renters, landlords, and the city’s broader housing market.
Under the reported plan, the tax rate for apartment buildings with 30 or more units, or those classified as luxury, would rise from the current $11.58 per $1,000 of assessed value to $23.60 — a 104% increase. SPOA argues that such a drastic change would not only strain property owners but also drive up rents, worsen housing affordability, and discourage much-needed residential development.
“This extreme proposal would do significant harm to Boston renters and landlords, deter investment in new housing, and enable the City of Boston to continue its pattern of unchecked spending increases,” the association said in its statement. “SPOA therefore opposes this proposal and recommends that state legislators evaluating a home rule petition along these lines do the same.”
Renters Could See Steep Increases
SPOA estimates that if the proposed tax were enacted, rents in affected buildings could rise by roughly 20%, as property owners pass along a portion of higher operating costs. The group warned that this would lead to displacement and financial hardship for many residents, while reduced operating cash flow could cause landlords to defer maintenance or upgrades, further impacting tenants’ quality of life.
The association dismissed claims that higher property taxes would not influence rents, calling such arguments “laughable” and “contradicted by basic economics and numerous research papers.” It cited Austin, Texas — often used as a comparison — as an example where higher property taxes have been offset by a much more permissive development environment, allowing new supply to keep rents lower.
A Threat to the City’s Housing Goals
SPOA emphasized that the proposed tax hike would undermine Boston’s efforts to expand its housing supply, a key priority amid the region’s ongoing affordability crisis. “Adding new costs for residential development, as this proposal would do, would only worsen the problem,” the organization said.
The group also warned that because large residential properties are valued based on income, higher tax expenses could decrease assessed valuations, shrinking the city’s tax base and prompting additional rate hikes that could eventually affect homeowners.
In its release, SPOA linked the proposed increase to what it described as Boston’s “inability to exercise spending restraint.” The organization noted that the City’s FY26 budget of $4.84 billion represents a 19% increase over FY23, averaging 6% annual growth, which outpaces inflation.
“It is unreasonable for the City to ask property owners to make significant economic sacrifices when it is not willing to impose a basic level of discipline on its own spending habits,” the statement read.
SPOA urged property owners, renters, and policymakers to oppose what it calls a “shortsighted and harmful” measure. Instead, the group advocates for policies that expand the city’s tax base through new development and promote fiscal responsibility in municipal spending.
“To improve its fiscal health,” SPOA concluded, “Boston’s government should focus on enabling more development and exercising restraint over its spending—not by punishing those who provide and maintain the city’s housing.”
