By Vanguard Staff
A new study is challenging a key argument used by opponents of tenant protections: that “good cause” eviction laws discourage new housing construction. As reported by NextCity and originally published in Shelterforce, researchers at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) found no empirical evidence that good cause protections reduce development activity.
The CURA study, published in March 2025, analyzed new building permits in counties across California, Oregon, and New Hampshire—states that have adopted some form of good cause eviction protections in recent years. These counties were compared to neighboring jurisdictions without such laws, with researchers controlling for economic factors like GDP, population, unemployment, and income levels. The result: good cause protections had no discernible effect on new construction permits.
The research comes at a pivotal moment, as several states—Connecticut, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Maryland, and Hawaii—debate or reintroduce legislation to establish good cause eviction laws. These laws, broadly speaking, prevent landlords from evicting tenants unless there is a legitimate reason, such as lease violations or illegal behavior.
In Maryland, tenant advocates have fought for years to pass statewide good cause protections, which are currently preempted by case law and cannot be enacted locally without legislative approval. But despite presenting new data to lawmakers, advocates say opponents simply moved the goalposts. The argument shifted from whether good cause alone harms development to whether good cause, when combined with other protections like rent stabilization and vacancy control, could deter investment.
State Sen. Will Smith, chair of the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, argued that having all three protections—good cause, rent stabilization, and vacancy control—is excessive. He acknowledged that without good cause, landlords are incentivized to evict tenants in order to raise rents but maintained that vacancy control should be sacrificed if good cause is adopted. A proposed amendment reflecting this view effectively derailed the legislation this year.
The CURA researchers and supporting economists disagree, stating that while developers may bristle at new paperwork or regulations, there is no evidence that good cause laws meaningfully alter their investment decisions. The opposition, they argue, is ideological or profit-driven rather than evidence-based.
Supporters of good cause protections point to New Jersey, which has had one of the strongest versions of the law since 1974. Despite this, New Jersey is currently outpacing states like Connecticut in housing development. In Connecticut, organizers report that opposition to good cause has focused less on claims of reduced development and more on landlords’ desire to retain the right to evict tenants without justification.
In Rhode Island, the CURA research has been cited during legislative hearings and in commissions studying housing policy, where it appears to have influenced policymakers more than the general public. Advocates note that while voters may not need academic evidence to understand the housing crisis, lawmakers are often swayed by developer narratives unless contradicted by hard data.
Opponents have cited a report from the NYU Furman Center warning that good cause eviction laws could indirectly reduce housing supply by prompting landlords to convert rental units into other uses. However, the Furman Center itself clarified that the report focused on a hypothetical good cause proposal and relied heavily on analogies to rent control policies—not direct evidence about good cause alone. The Center acknowledged that there is limited empirical research and that the effects of recently enacted laws remain to be studied long-term.
Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that good cause protections do not hamper new construction, advocates say misinformation continues to dominate public and political discourse. Researchers note that landlord talking points often make it into news coverage and legislative hearings even after data disproves their claims. Tenant advocates say that while the public largely understands the urgency of the housing crisis, it is lawmakers—regularly lobbied by real estate interests—who must be convinced with facts.
As more states debate good cause laws, the research from CURA may prove critical in pushing back against unsupported claims. Whether it is enough to overcome entrenched political resistance remains to be seen.
