“In front of you is an ordinance that will protect residents,” said Providence City Council President Rachel Miller (Ward 13), speaking from the floor of the council chamber. “It will do so while allowing property owners to have what they need to maintain their properties, invest in them, and ensure they earn an investment that can go back into our city. It’s also more than that: It is a fork in the road for the city of Providence.”
During Friday evening’s special meeting of the Providence City Council, nine city councilmembers (Jill S. Davidson (Ward 2), Sue Anderbois (Ward 3), Justin Roias (Ward 4), Miguel Sanchez (Ward 6), Juan Pichardo (Ward 9), Mary Kay Harris (Ward 11), Althea Graves (Ward 12), Rachel Miller (Ward 13), and Shelley Peterson (Ward 14)) reaffirmed their commitment to rent stabilization by voting to overturn the veto of Providence Mayor Brett Smiley. One city councilmember, Jo-Ann Ryan (Ward 5), voted against overturning the veto. Five other city councilmembers, John Goncalves (Ward 1), Ana Vargas (Ward 7), James Taylor (Ward 8), Pedro Espinal (Ward 10), and Oscar Vargas (Ward 15) didn’t bother to show up.
The battle for rent stabilization now moves to the elections, where all 15 city councilmembers will face voters. Landlords and housing lobbyists are already dumping money into the coffers of their loyal councilmembers and searching for candidates to challenge councilmembers who support rent stabilization. Two open seats are also up for grabs in Wards 3 and 5. (Sue Anderbois Ward 3) is running for Lieutenant Governor, and Jo-Ann Ryan (Ward 5) is term-limited.) Mayor Smiley is also facing a challenge from David Morales, who has made rent stabilization a pillar of his campaign.
Here’s the video:
“Together, this council has already made history,” continued Council President Miller. “We’ve made it clear to the residents of the city that the council is fighting for the beating heart of our city, the people who live here, and the people who call it home. We have heard from hundreds of people sharing stories about how their lives are on the edge of a knife. That a 40% rent increase since 2020 is too much, and that edge of a knife is one bill away from catastrophe for themselves and their family. I hope every counselor has had a chance to hear from the many constituents who have stories to share about why this ordinance is so critical to them.
“We’ve also heard from many opponents of rent stabilization. Many of them are property owners, realtors, and representatives of corporations who have a lot to lose - large corporations that have been driving up rent beyond property value and what is needed to maintain properties. We’ve heard a lot from opponents, but it occurs to me that there’s something we really haven’t heard, whether from opponents external to the city or government officials themselves, when confronted with the fact that for families across the city, rent renewal comes with a rent increase that amounts to eviction.
“When asked, ‘Where should those families go?’ the sound we hear is silence. There is no answer from the government or from the city. We know that we cannot build our way out of what amounts to a catastrophe for families and a loss to our city as families move out of the city. I worry that in that silence, in that absolute nothing, by intention or default, there’s a movement in Providence for the wealthiest among us and not for the rest of us.
“Of course, we will keep building as this council has dedicated millions of dollars to doing so. We will continue to protect property values by ensuring that families can invest in their properties. We will keep moving families towards home ownership, but for the 60% plus of us who rent, we have got to do something, and that time is now.
“We’ve also heard testimony that it will take over 30 years to build our way forward. Mr. President, I don’t know where you’re going to be in 30 years. I don’t know where I’ll be in 30 years. I don’t know where our city will be in 30 years if we don’t act today to protect people.
“There are lots of other things to say about what we’ve heard. A lot of it has been from the industry comparing apples to oranges, and we shouldn’t be surprised, because this is a very old story. It’s one we’ve all heard, whether we know it or not. Show me a regulation on an industry, and I will show you an industry that resists that regulation, every time: from seat belts to breathable air to basic bank protections to algorithmic pricing, we are told by industry representatives that if you regulate, catastrophe follows. Yet here we are: we have seat belts. We have regulations on air and drinking water, and we are better for all of those things.
“Government regulation is not enacted because the industry clamors for it, but because the people demand it. We know that our residents are in crisis, and they need their local government to step up to the plate. I know, and you know, that rent regulation does exactly one thing: It regulates rent. Together, we’re going to keep doing all those other things that we need to do to move us away from a larger affordability and housing crisis, so I’m asking my colleagues tonight to vote to override this veto and let tomorrow be the very first day that renters can wake up in the city of Providence and have some amount of security in their homes.
“I also know that tonight, if we stay together as nine, if we do not overcome this hurdle, there will be people in the city celebrating. They will think this has been defeated. They will think that this is the end. I guarantee, and I know firsthand, that they are already planning to funnel their wealth into opponents for the nine of us to replace us. I say to those wealthy interests: ‘Fair warning. What I have seen in the city over the last months and years is that rent stabilization has lit a fire in the imaginations of the residents of this city, has let all of us dream together of a local government that stands, protects, and fights for its residents, no matter who we are, how much money is in our pockets, or where we live.’”
Floor speech of Councilmember Althea Graves (Ward 12)
“Even if this bill is defeated, and the mayor has succeeded in vetoing this, the fight is not over. We are here to fight for the city of Providence. We are here to fight for the citizens of Providence. We are here to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. You voted us into this office to fight for you, and we will continue to do so. We are not fighting for those who live outside the city, get all the money, go on vacation somewhere else, spend their money in another city, put their children in private schools, and do all these wonderful things for themselves, but do nothing for us.
“We are here to vote and pray for you. We’re going to make it through. And you know why we’re going to make it through? Because God is on our side. I am going to tell you something: I feel it in my bones because I know that in all the times that we have struggled, fought, and cried, we always come through in the end, and we’re going to come through in the end because we made this city. They didn’t make the city. We made this city what it is. It’s our blood, sweat, and tears.
“I refuse to let a few people come in here and take our city from us. I refuse to let a few people come in here and let us all become homeless. It’s not going to happen, not on my watch, even if we lose tonight. You know what? The people who chose not to come tonight, the power is in the voting box. They are trying to vote us out. Let’s run together and get the right people out. Let’s show these people that we are not afraid of them. Let’s show these people that we don’t care. They don’t even live here. They don’t have a vote, and the few who do live here only have one. Let’s show them where the power is. It’s not with them. It is with us. It’s with those sitting here and with y’all. So, my people, do not fear. If we lose this time, we can bring it back next year and revote!
“And we won’t need to do any more studies because we’ve already done them. We will vote tonight, and if it’s nine, that’s fine, because we know this nine will continue to fight. I am proud of my sisters and brothers because I know that in their hearts of hearts, they truly believe in this city, and they are going to fight. I know the games that have been played, but they think they’re the only ones who can play them.”
Floor speech of Councilmember Justin Roias (Ward 4):
“This moment carries a different kind of weight for me because this council has already spoken twice on rent stabilization. Twice, this body voted to pass this ordinance. Twice, we said that tenants and Providence deserve stability, predictability, and protection from unchecked rent increases. And tonight, after the mayor’s veto, we are being asked a final question: Will we stand by the votes we’ve already taken for the people who sent us here, and for the tenants across this city who are counting on us to act, or will we back away?
“As I said before, our original vote: renters in this city have been told to wait for the market to correct itself, and create more housing supply, while rents rise faster than wages, and families are pushed out of the neighborhoods they helped build. Meanwhile, displacement, speculation, and evictions have not waited. So tonight, we are done waiting.
“Let’s remember how we got here: This ordinance did not appear overnight. It came from years of organizing, testimony, coalition-building, and relentless advocacy by tenants, workers, senior students, and families who have refused to be ignored. People packed these chambers as they are doing now. People shared their deeply personal stories and demanded action, and this council, led by its leadership and supported by our policy team, listened. We should be proud of that because this policy is not fringe, it is not radical. It is not disconnected from public opinion. 72% of Rhode Islanders support limits on annual rent increases. In Providence, the support is even higher. Nearly three out of four people support rent stabilization because they understand exactly what is happening around them. They see rents increasing without warning. They see neighbors disappearing. They see entire communities becoming unaffordable in real time.
“Even the mayor has admitted what the problem is. In the recent social media post, the mayor wrote, ‘Providence is facing a serious affordability challenge driven by a shortage of homes that makes it harder for families to rent or buy.’ Now, let’s decode what the mayor actually means: He is acknowledging that there is an imbalance in the housing market, an imbalance where demand is high, supply is limited, and landlords know tenants have fewer and fewer options. And what has happened in that environment? Corporate landlords and large property owners have taken advantage of that imbalance to push rents higher and higher because they know people are desperate to stay housed. That is the behavior at the center of this crisis. This is not just scarcity. This is not just economics. This is people looking at the housing crisis and deciding it is the perfect moment to cash in on human desperation. When people have nowhere else to go, vacancy rates are low, and families are afraid of displacement, landlords gain enormous leverage, and many have used that leverage to impose massive rent increases that working people cannot absorb
“That behavior, friends, is what we call exploitative.
“Rent stabilization is simple. There must be limits. There must be guardrails against the unchecked exploitation of a housing shortage because if we acknowledge the imbalance exists, as the mayor does, but refuse to regulate the conduct that flows from it, then we are saying that exploitation is acceptable as long as the market allows it. I do not believe that.
“Respectfully, colleagues who vote against this override tonight or who are not here are not just rejecting a policy proposal. They’re refusing to correct behavior that everyone in this chamber can plainly see is harming the people of this city.
“I also want to address something else we have heard repeatedly throughout this debate. The mayor has made a number of sky-is-falling claims about rent stabilization. We keep hearing that studies say this policy will fail or that research shows catastrophic outcomes, but here is the problem: Those studies are rarely ever cited specifically. We are told to trust unnamed studies. We are told to accept broad conclusions without seeing the evidence behind them. Meanwhile, the lived experience of tenants in this city is treated as somehow less credible than vague references to research that never actually gets put on the table. If we are going to invoke studies to justify blocking protections for thousands of renters, then we should at least be honest and transparent enough to name those studies, debate them openly, and examine who they actually benefit, because tenants deserve more than fear-based talking points dressed up as evidence.
“What I also find remarkable in this debate is the contradiction we are hearing from some of my colleagues who oppose rent stabilization. Some of my colleagues supported this council’s efforts to ban algorithmic rental price fixing software because they recognize that it is wrong for corporate landlords and property managers to use software to manipulate rents upward in coordinated ways. And guess what? I agree with that. But what I cannot understand is this: If it is wrong for landlords to use software to drive rents higher, why is it suddenly acceptable when they do it without the software? If the harm is families being priced out, if the harm is exploitative rent increases, then the harm does not somehow disappear just because a computer program is no longer involved. That irony is impossible for me to ignore because, at the end of the day, whether it happens through an algorithm or through unchecked market power, the result for tenants is the same: higher rents, more instability, and more displacement.
“We have heard alternative proposals: short-term rent-assistance programs that provide relief only after someone has already fallen behind. But let’s be honest about the difference here. Emergency assistance is reactive. What is before us right now is preventative. One steps in after the crisis has already begun, while the other creates predictability before the crisis happens. One asks families to hit the wall first, the other tries to stop them from being pushed there in the first place. Those are not the same thing.
“Should the mayor’s veto stand tonight, it will not change the underlying reality that brought this ordinance before us. The mayor’s veto does not erase the housing crisis, lower rents, or stop displacement. What it does is force the council to decide whether we are willing to stand by the votes we already took and the residents who demanded action, because the fallout from inaction will not stay in this chamber. They show up in eviction filings, families doubling up with relatives, children changing schools mid-year, moving trucks, mattresses left on sidewalks, and the evidence of displacement that our DPW workers are left to clean up every single day. That is what instability looks like on the ground.
“Despite this veto, one thing remains true: You can veto this ordinance, but you cannot veto the will of this city, the tenants who organized for years to get here, or the reality people are experiencing in every neighborhood of this city. Let me be clear when I make this point: No amount of money and development interests bankrolling political campaigns can erase what people in this city are living through every single day. Families cannot afford these rent increases. Workers are still being pushed out of their neighborhoods. Seniors are living with uncertainty every time a lease renewal arrives. That is why this movement continues to grow. It is rooted in lived reality and people fighting to stay in the city they call home.
“Tonight is bigger than just one vote. It is about whether we believe stability should still exist in this city for working people, seniors, young families, immigrants, students, and lifelong residents. It’s about whether we believe people deserve a fair chance to remain in the community they call home. Years from now, people will look back at this moment and ask, “When families needed protection, who stood with them?” Tonight, we have the opportunity to answer that question clearly. I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto and stand with the people of Providence.”
Floor speech of Councilmember Jo-Ann Ryan (Ward 5):
“Housing affordability is the defining challenge facing Providence families today. No one in this chamber disputes that, but the question before us isn’t whether we care. It’s whether this ordinance actually helps them. It doesn’t. This rent stabilization ordinance will not lower rent. In fact, the mere introduction of this proposal has already caused rents to rise. Across American cities, policies like this have produced the same predictable outcomes: deteriorating housing stock, shrinking rental supply, and intensified pressure on the very tenants that they were meant to protect. We cannot cap our way out of a housing shortage. This is simply bad policy.
“The proven path forward is building more housing, and Providence is doing exactly that. We lead the state in housing production. In 2025, we issued 778 permits compared to 416 in Warwick and roughly 200 each in East Providence, Lincoln, and Pawtucket. That momentum is fragile. This ordinance threatens to kill it. The investment we need to solve this crisis won’t come to a city that signals hostility to development.
“I want immediate relief for struggling families, and I support it. That’s why I backed the rent fund ordinance and the mayor’s broader housing package. These proposals deliver direct assistance to families facing hardship and help prevent evictions without the destructive side effects of rent control.
“But beyond the policy flaws, there are serious process failures here that this council cannot ignore: The city charter is unambiguous. A fiscal note must accompany any ordinance affecting the budget before any action is taken. That didn’t happen. The sponsors chose not to partner with the administration or the council’s own finance team on a financial analysis before advancing this proposal. We still don’t know the full impact of implementing this ordinance on housing investment, property maintenance, future development, or the tax burden that will shift onto single-family homeowners. We are being asked to vote on a policy of enormous consequence with our eyes closed. That is not governance. It is guesswork at the residents’ expense.
“There is also a structural problem with how this ordinance was written. It gives the council president authority to appoint a rent board to adjudicate landlord-tenant disputes. These are among the most sensitive high-stakes matters that come before any judicial body. A politically appointed board cannot deliver equitable justice. That should trouble every member of this chamber, regardless of where you stand on rent control.
“Let’s be clear about who we are talking about when we talk about Providence landlords: They are not faceless corporations. They are our firefighters, tradespeople, immigrants, and working families who invested in aging properties and our city’s future. As Mark Patinkin reported in today’s Providence Journal, a local firefighter has already paused his investments here and is looking elsewhere, not because of high costs, but because of the uncertainty this ordinance has created. We’ve heard the same from neighbors and developers across the city. That should alarm all of us. Sustaining this veto is not a vote against affordability. It’s a vote for solutions that actually work: more housing, direct assistance, and smart investment. Let’s not trade a decade of housing progress for a policy that will make this crisis work. Let’s stop this folly. Let’s get to work and let’s deliver something Providence families can actually count on.”
Floor speech of Councilmember Miguel Sanchez (Ward 6):
“People often ask me what my guiding principles are in this work. There are a lot of them, but one that comes to mind right away, in everything I do, is this quote from a former Mexican President, AMLO, on his way out. He said, ‘For the good of all people, first the poor.’ That’s something that I carry in everything I do. If we take care of the people who need it the most, then everyone will be okay. But unfortunately, that’s not the reality.
“A lot of people are not okay. With the cost of living, quality of education, and cost of healthcare, people are struggling. These complex issues are compounding on people. AI talking points sound good on Facebook or in a letter, but try saying that to someone who is getting evicted. Try saying that to someone who is living in a tent. Try saying that to someone being torn from the city they’ve called home for decades, because that’s what’s happening right now. People who have called Providence home for decades are being forced out.
“What matters is doing everything that we can to protect people who call Providence home. The opposition is opposing a very moderate policy because that’s what this is at the end of the day. This policy still allows people to make money in their business plans. All we’re doing is adding a check and balance to limit that. But what we’re seeing at the federal level, and I might get a point of order, but I’m going to say it still: Trump is destabilizing families. Opposition to rent control is destabilizing families.
“As many of my colleagues have said, this isn’t a loss if we don’t override the veto. This is just the beginning. I see people from DARE here, a group that started way before any of us were in the office… We’re going to keep fighting, and I don’t say this lightly: I don’t care if the opposition throws a candidate at me. If they throw money, I don’t care. I carried my grandpa’s casket on the same streets that I represent. I will die for the people of Providence.
“This city has given my family and me so many opportunities. I’m not going to sit in the seat that has given my family opportunities and take those opportunities away from them. I would never betray my community like that, but that’s what some of my colleagues are doing today, and that’s something they’re going to have to live with. We’re going to move forward. Voters will have the option in September to elect a mayor who does not oppose rent stabilization. We’re to continue doing the work for the people. Housing stability is one of many issues affecting our families, but those same issues are compounding, forcing people out, and they can’t take it anymore. Council President Miller, I will forever be grateful to you for your political courage in bringing such an important issue forward.
“And it’s not a loss. My mom always told me, ‘You win in life, and you learn in life,’ and we have learned a lot. We learned who truly is here for the people of Providence. We learned that landlords oppose development in their communities, and then came to oppose rent stabilization in our community.
“For the good of all people, first the poor.”
After the vote, Council President Miller issued the following statement:
“I’m profoundly disappointed that Mayor Smiley and a small minority of the City Council chose to side with developers and corporate landlords over Providence renters. With nine out of fifteen city councilors defying big-money special interests to support rent stabilization, it’s clear the grip the real estate lobby has over City Hall is slipping. But tonight, that grip was still strong enough to block much-needed protections for working families. Until the next effort succeeds, the unfortunate reality remains: in Providence, it is still legal for a landlord to raise rent by unlimited amounts, for any reason.
“Industry wants us to believe the sky will fall if there’s reform. But for working families, the sky is already falling, as concentrated real estate power turns Providence into a city so few can afford.
“In the 1930s, business groups warned that the minimum wage, the weekend, and child labor laws would destroy the free market. In the 1960s and 1970s, car manufacturers warned that seatbelt requirements and clean air rules would destroy the auto industry. After the 2008 financial crisis, Wall Street warned that basic banking regulations would destroy the economy. And in 2026, the real estate industry cries that basic tenant protections will kill development. But I see businesses still open, streets full of cars, and banks making money. And I see no reason to let the same tired industry panic stand between working people and the basic protections they deserve.
“Like those reforms, rent stabilization is a modest guardrail to keep working people from being crushed by an unchecked market. And like those reforms, there will come a time when basic tenant protections are common, obvious, and accepted.
“I hope that this effort to keep Providence families in their homes has changed the conversation. I hope it allowed working people to see themselves not just as people affected by the housing crisis, but as people with the power to change it. We landed one vote short of changing the power dynamic between landlords and tenants in the city of Providence. That is painful proof that victory is within reach.
“Developers alone will never save working people from the housing crisis. Lobbyists will not build an affordable Providence. That will take relentless community organizing, sustained public pressure, and political courage from city leaders.
“Talk to your neighbors. Organize in your community. Make your voice heard in the halls of government. The fight for an affordable Providence is only just beginning.”
After the vote, Representative David Morales, who is running for Mayor of Providence, issued the following statement:
“As our next Mayor, I am committed to working with Council President Miller and her colleagues to bring this legislation back, pass it, sign it, and begin enforcing it within my first 100 days in office. Rents in Providence have risen by more than 40% since 2020, and working people are getting priced out of the city they love. This bill is common sense and has the overwhelming support of our neighbors across age, race, income, and ideological lines.
“I find it shameful that, with Providence now ranked as the least affordable city in America for renters, Mayor Smiley would veto this bill, which would have provided our neighbors peace of mind that they could continue to afford to call Providence home. I am disappointed in the council members who chose to stand with the Mayor and against the majority of their colleagues, especially those who supported this bill until they received campaign contributions from corporate real estate interests.
“I commend Council President Miller and every council member and coalition member who worked so hard to pass this bill. This fight is not over. Our neighbors need relief now, and this bill would have provided it. They will have the opportunity to make their voices heard in the Democratic Primary on September 9th, and I look forward to continuing to share our vision of a Providence all our neighbors can afford.”
A couple of points. Mark Patinkin’s article consisted of an interview with one person. ONE person who is against the legislation. Laziest writer and the only long term person ProJo kept on, for shame. The ‘we will build our way out of the crisis’ lobby has also said that once all these new apartments are built, rents will go down. That is not a fact and I do not believe that will happen. There are luxury apartment buildings in the pipeline but I can’t see that helping out large numbers of people. I did see a RIPTA bus this week with a huge sign on the side - “Landlords fix your rentals or fines are coming”. If true, it’s about time.
I can understand the argument that "rent control" can lead to disinvestment, but I think the greater risk to the general good is to allow any owner to raise rents by any amount for any reason, We know that leads to, a loot of misery, The ordnance has exceptions and provisions to protect landlords too.
Everyone says increase the housing supply, but easier said than done. In Providence and everywhere else there are lots of people who don't want additional residents or higher buildings nearby, or, they don't want to see beautiful natural areas paved over for more housing, That is not irrational, there can be reasons to feel that way, but it makes it hard to build enough.