Rent Control, Sullivan Key

THE STAKES ARE high in tomorrow's election for City Council, and your choice of candidates is important for maintaining the diversity and integrity of the Cambridge community.

A tenuous majority of progressive city lawmakers has kept Cambridge's current rent control policy intact since stringent housing regulations were adopted 15 years ago. Since that time, rent control has preserved 17,000 housing units for low and moderate income people. The balance of power on the council, however, could easily be upset this year due to increased pressure from realtors and landlords to leave the city's housing market vulnerable to speculation and condominium conversion. And that simply must not be allowed to happen.

A victory by opponents of rent control would leave an indelible mark not only on the city's mixed housing market but also on the diversity of people able to live in Cambridge. Rent control has helped forestall gentrification in the face of an especially tight housing market and potentially lucrative profits for speculators and developers if decontrol were to occur.

But while condominium conversions and posh building complexes mean profits to some and an attractive bedroom community to Cambridge's growing population of affluent young professionals, they inevitably mean prohibitively expensive housing and probable displacement for many people who now live in the city. A Cambridge housing market without rent control not only would encroach on the city's various blue-collar neighborhoods--the most common fear of rent control activists--but would also exclude many moderate and middle income professionals. Moreover, the cost of displacing many Cambridge residents would be an end to the diverse and vibrant community that is this city's greatest asset.

THERE ARE SEVEN candidates this year who have demonstrated strong support for rent control. They include six candidates backed by the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA): Francis H. Duehay '55, Saundra K. Graham, Renae Scott, Kenneth E. Reeves '72, David E. Sullivan, and Alice K. Wolf. The CCA candidates also deserve your vote for their consistently strong support for progressive measures such as the civilian police review board, sanctuary for Latin American refugees, regulation of commercial development in the city, government accountability, and a sound city budget. Independent incumbent Alfred E. Vellucci, a self-proclaimed urban populist, also deserves to be reelected for consistently voting on the right side of important social issues. Cambridge's proportional voting system allows voters to support all of these candidates.

When ranking candidates on their ballot tomorrow, voters should know that their number one vote is especially important. It should go to David Sullivan.

For three terms, Sullivan has led the fight to limit condominium conversion and institutional expansion. The Harvard Law School graduate has also proposed new ways to link new real estate development with the construction of more middle income housing. Ten years ago, Sullivan was primarily responsible for getting college students the right to vote in Cambridge.

While Sullivan has widespread support from the city's tenant constituency, he lacks a strong neighborhood base and has traditionally relied on student votes. In the last election he was the eighth candidate elected, and student votes almost certainly provided the winning margin. Giving David Sullivan your number one vote and supporting the rent control slate is the best thing a Harvard student can do for Cambridge tomorrow.