Duehay or Wolf #1

THE past 20 years have seen few changes in Cambridge politics. Although politicians have come and gone, the basic makeup of the City Council has remained exactly the same since the mid-1970s.

This year, however, the situation is different. For the first time since 1961, three of the council's nine members have decided not to seek re-election. As a result, the council race is wide open. In 1989, more than any other year in recent memory, your vote will make a difference.

As they have been for several years, rent control and development are the litmus test issues for candidates seeking election to the council.

While the system of rent control used in Cambridge is in many ways inadequate, it has managed to preserve 17,000 units of housing for low-and moderate-income city residents. Although critics of the system love to depict it as riddled with abuses, most of the available data on the subject indicates that rent-controlled housing generally does go to the people who need it.

If a majority of anti-rent control candidates comes to power this year, it is doubtful that the system will continue. If it does survive, it will certainly be whittled down in a way that will benefit big landowners and hurt tenants.

SINCE the mid 1970s, Cambridge has pursued a policy of aggressively seeking new development to raise tax revenue. In many ways, the policy has been a successful one. By attracting wealthy developers, Cambridge has been able to tranform itself from a dying industrial center to one of the area's most financially secure cities.

Unfortunately, development has had many negative impacts on the city as well. City residents feel the costs of new construction in terms of increased traffic and polution. And as the city allows the creation of more and bigger office buildings and shopping malls, homeowners and tenants alike are driven out of town.

New development is clearly important to the city. But it is equally important that development be controlled. The city needs to insure that builders give something back to the city, and that every new square foot of office space is balanced by the creation of more affordable housing.

All three of the outgoing council members--Saundra Graham, David E. Sullivan and Alfred E. Vellucci--have been key backers of a progressive agenda for the city. Their loss will be keenly felt during the next two years, unless voters replace them with an equally vigilant team of pro-tenant council members committed to limiting development.

SEVERAL of the 28 candidates in this years election have professed support for these issues. They include the 11 candidates backed by the Cambridge Civic Association: Edward N. Cyr, Francis H. Duehay '55, Esther M. Hanig, Regina Jones, Rena H. Leib, Jonathan S. Myers, Kenneth E. Reeves '72, Renae D. Scott, E. Denise Simmons, John T. St. George and Alice K. Wolf.

Several other candidates are not endorsed by the CCA, but have expressed strong positions in favor of rent control. Among these candidates, James M. Greene, Paul J. Johnson Jr., and Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. deserve serious consideration.

Under Cambridge's system of proportional representation, it is important to vote for several candidates. In the late stages of the vote count, third, fourth and lower-choice votes can mean the difference between victory and defeat for a candidate. We strongly urge you to vote for all of these candidates.

However, the number-one vote is of particular importance. A candidate who does not receive a strong base of first-choice votes tomorrow will likely be out of the running; no amount of tranfer votes will make up the difference.

And of all the candidates seeking office tomorrow, the two who most deserve your votes are incumbents Francis H. Duehay '55 and Alice K. Wolf.

LIKE all of the CCA candidates, Wolf and Duehay have been strong supporters of rent control during their terms on the council. They have consistently voted against a variety of anti-rent control measures--including Proposition 1-2-3.

In addition, both Duehay and Wolf have been strong advocates of responsible development in recent years. They have consistently voted in favor of limiting new construction where it would intrude upon neighborhoods. Key initiatives they have supported include downzoning of the Gulf Station site on Mass Ave. and the Yanow petition to set back all new construction at a 45 degree angle from residential neighborhoods.

And last year, both Duehay and Wolf voted against the sale of property rights on the site of the Harvard Motor House, correctly arguing that the city had almost no idea of the actual worth of the property. Unlike the majority of the City Council, they did not simply place their trust in the developer's promise that the deal was a fair one. Two more years of a little healthy suspicion would serve the council well.

In recent months, Duehay has come under attack for signing a petition against the largely Black Commonwealth Day School, formerly located in the wealthy Brattle St. neighborhood. In an indirect mudslinging campaign, attackers have sought to paint him as a closet racist. Although we believe Duehay erred in signing the petition, it is patently ridiculous to accuse him of racism. With regard to racial issues, Duehay has an umimpeachable record, which includes a groundbreaking school desegregation plan he directed while mayor and chair of the School Committee.

In addition, Duehay has worked hard to involve Harvard students in, and inform them about, the election. He has knocked on the doors of every registered student voter and has discussed the prominent issues with them. We commend him--as well as Reeves and St. John--for their effort to reach students.

With the departure this year of longtime Councillor Saundra Graham, Wolf becomes the only woman incumbent with a strong stand on women's issues. Most recently, she sponsored an order to put the council on record as pro-choice. Despite Wolf's advocacy of the move and support from Graham and Duehay, it was defeated by the council's conservative bloc.

However, we are disappointed that Wolf did not take the time to to campaign on campus this year. We encourage her to make an effort to contact students in the future.

More than 2000 people are registered to vote this year on the Harvard campus--easily enough to put two candidates over the top. With your votes, Duehay and Wolf will be able to continue as effective spokespersons for a progressive city government.