Registering Concern for Our City

FOR Massachusetts voters, 1989 is something of an off year. There's no presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial or congressional election. There's not even an Olympics or a World Series on the East coast.

But three weeks from tomorrow, Cambridge is holding local elections. Three weeks may seem like a long way off. By November 7, Halloween will have come and gone, and Thanksgiving will be just around the corner. More to the point, however, tomorrow--October 17--is the last day on which Cambridge residents can register to vote in this fall's elections. Students can register at the Cambridge Election Commission, 362 Green Street in Central Square, today or tomorrow.

This year's local elections are crucial. For the first time since the early 1960s, three of the City Council incumbents have decided not to run for re-election. Although each of the three--Saundra Graham, David E. Sullivan and Alfred E. Vellucci--represent viewpoints that often differ dramatically in the city, they have all generally aligned themselves with the city's "progressives." And in recent years, they have played a crucial role in maintaining the five-member council majority that supports rent control.

The political orientation of the city's government is therefore up for grabs. While previous years have seen as many as eight or nine incumbents elected, this year only six incumbents are even running.

In addition, voters will be faced with a referendum known as Proposition 1-2-3 that could reduce by thousands the number of rent-controlled apartments in a city where more than 70 percent of residents do not own their own homes.

WHY should Harvard students care about Cambridge politics?

One reason is parochial but important. Harvard University is located in Cambridge, and the City Council can therefore object to Harvard's actions when objections seem appropriate. The Council passed a resolution condemning Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko when he recently spoke at Harvard, and in the past the Council has questioned Harvard's investment policies and labor relations strategies.

When Harvard announced its plans to build a hotel on the former site of the Gulf Station--a proposal that would have dramatically altered the character of Harvard Square--it was the City Council, not any Harvard organization, that took action. Ignoring threats of a lawsuit from Harvard, the council passed new zoning for the site and reduced by half the size of future construction on it.

In short, the City Council, much like the Harvard Undergraduate Council, can provide a voice of reason and skepticism in response to the actions of Harvard's administration. Harvard may well choose to ignore the objections of those outside its walls, but it is still important for the University to realize that it has not been granted what it dreams of: namely, its own independent fiefdom on the Charles.

IT is certainly not absurd--although it may be unusual--to suggest that the city of Cambridge is actually more important than Harvard University. The number of Cambridge residents, for instance, is more than five times as great as the number of Harvard students. And while Harvard undergraduates are usually assured of housing for four year, most Cambridge residents possess no such guarantee.

Our current housing crisis is doubtless a national problem that demands national policy changes. Next month's election is not going to make everything rosy in Central Square. Still, the elections will make an important difference.

The primary reason that affordable housing still exists in Cambridge, the main reason the city's population is still economically and culturally diverse, is the city's system of rent control. Landlords are prohibited by law from raising their rents to clear out low- and moderate-income tenants and replace them with yuppies.

Cambridge's rent control policy is especially critical in the late 1980s, when housing costs nationwide are outpacing income at frightening rates. According to Peter Dreier, director of housing at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, two-thirds of low-income renters currently pay at least half of their income for housing.

Those who argue against rent control and for so-called "market-oriented" solutions are ignoring the realities of current income levels and rents. A City Council with three pro-rent-control members is essential to the survival of Cambridge as a multicultural city.

AS if the Council elections weren't enough, affordable housing faces another threat this fall in Proposition 1-2-3. This referendum, penned by Cambridge realtor Frederick N. Meyer, would allow tenants who have lived in rent-controlled apartments to buy them. The argument Meyer uses is that the loss of a rent-controlled apartment is offset by the gain of a new homeowner. The proposal's advocates paint the issue as one of "choice."

In fact, however, very few moderate-income renters today would be able to choose to buy their home. Carrying a mortgage on an average-priced home sucks up over half of the median income of a young family with children.

That only those who are already homeowners can afford to buy a home today has become a truism. Proposition 1-2-3, thus, would merely provide an option to moderate-income tenants that they could never afford to take. Worse, 1-2-3 would provide an incentive to landlords to drive out low-income tenents and rent instead to the wealthy, who can afford to convert apartments to condominiums.

On November 7, all politics will be local politics. Only student protest can ultimately check Harvard's administration, and only national politics can ultimately solve the housing crisis. November's election will not provide a sufficient solution to Cambridge's problems, but it is a necessary part of the solution. The future of our city does indeed hinge upon the outcome of this local election. Don't regret later that you could have made a difference: register to vote today.