The Human Side of Proposition 1-2-3

Judy VanIngen, like many Cambridge residents who live in one of the city's 17,000 rent-controlled apartments, puts little stock in claims that Proposition 1-2-3 is designed for her benefit.

"Proposition 1-2-3 will end rent control forever," VanIngen says. "If rent control goes out, I'm sure my landlord can get $1200 for my apartment and I don't know what I'll do."

But according to Mari E. Morgan and other Cambridge property owners, 1-2-3 would offer those same Cambridge residents a fair shot at home ownership, an opportunity they lack under current rent control policies.

"If a tenant is living in a condominium and he wants to buy it and the landlord wants to sell it, then I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to," Morgan says.

Those arguments--and the faces behind them--will be on the minds of Cambridge voters today when they pass final judgment on Proposition 1-2-3, the latest referendum on rent control in Cambridge.

If voters approve 1-2-3, rent-control tenants will be eligible to purchase their apartments after living in them for at least two years. That would mark the most fundamental change in Cambridge rent control policy, which currently sets ceilings on rent levels throughout the city, since its inception nearly 20 years ago.

More importantly for the people who now live in those apartments, however, is the effect they think 1-2-3 will have on their lives.

"I certainly don't want Proposition 1-2-3 to be passed," says one 50-year Cambridge resident. "I need to be in a rent control apartment because I'm on a limited income and Social Security."

Those opposed to the proposition claim that it would decrease the number of available rent control apartments in Cambridge, foroing many low-income tenants out of the area.

"Most people living in this building cannot afford to live in Cambridge without rent control," says Grace H. Smith, who has lived in the same apartment on Chauncy St. for about 50 years.

At the very least, many tenants say, 1-2-3's passage would give landlords more leverage over their tenants.

"Landlords have the right to put in whoever they want and they'll put in people who have the money to buy the apartment," says Amy J. Fripp. "I don't think most people can afford to buy their apartments."

Even worse, some residents say, 1-2-3 will allow real estate investors to wield greater financial influence, forcing low-income earners out of the apartments so they can woo wealthy potential buyers.

"The greedy real estate people will make us offers and get us to sell," VanIngen says. "If you're a poor family and someone offers you $3000 to move that sounds great. But you have to have somewhere to move to."

And that, many fear, would take away from Cambridge's unique character.

"We all love the diversity and ethnicity of Cambridge and that will change," says VanIngen.

"Cambridge has already changed a lot," says one rent control tenant on Broadway. "People want to live in 'hip places' and the people who made it sort of bohemian can't afford to live there at free market prices."

Some tenants point to more practical arguments. They say higher rents under 1-2-3 would simply make living in Cambridge economically troublesome.

The tenant on Broadway says he would move if rent control vanished because, "If these apartments weren't rent control they would probably be over $800 a month--then you might as well buy a house."

But the case is not cut-and-dry for many who live in rent-controlled apartments.

The tenant on Broadway, for instance, describes his family as "a young, professional, both-working couple without kids." And he says, "I don't see rent control as having affordable housing for people. They would only rent to people like us."

Tenants like him have joined the ranks of Cambridge's real estate investors and small property owners, citing similar arguments in their defense of 1-2-3.

"Many rent control apartments are not for low-income people," says Morgan. "With my own experience they are well off people who could afford to pay market rent."

Pro-1-2-3 forces argue that the proposition would lead to more privately owned low-income housing, offer low-income earners the option to own their own home in Cambridge and eventually add to the construction of low-income housing.

And Morgan, for one, finds little substance in complaints that 1-2-3 would allow landlords to exclusively seek out wealthy tenants.

"My criteria are not economics," Morgan says. "I don't get people applying who appear to be in dire straights...For whatever reason people who are low-income tenants don't make it into our apartments."

In fact, many Harvard Square rent control tenants could remain in Cambridge even without rent control, some owners and residents say.

"Generally speaking people in Harvard affiliate housing can afford something else, either now or in the near future," says Peter W. Fraser, who lives in Harvard affiliate rent-controlled housing.

Morgan agrees that 1-2-3 would give landlords more control over their units. But she characterized that as one of the proposal's assets, not as its glaring liability.

"Proposition 1-2-3 would be a chance for condominium owners to regain control of their property and raise the quality of our neighborhoods because there would be owner occupied property," Morgan says.

Linda B. Levine, who owns two rent-controlled apartments on Mt. Auburn St., says rent control is uneconomical for owners, and hopes that either 1-2-3 or the accompanying City Council elections can turn the situation around.

"It isn't worth it to rent control. I'm losing money," she says. "If we don't get an Independent majority on the City Council...If they don't reform [rent control] so that I get a fair rent, I'm going to have to sell."

But Levine says her concern for the plight of frustrated would-be homeowners is also behind her support of 1-2-3.

"It would increase the number of home owners," Levine says. "There is a problem of affordable housing."

As for arguments that 1-2-3 is too drastic a change for the people who have lived in rent-controlled apartments for years, Fraser says that is simply not the case.

"I don't see that it will be drastic because I think the proposition is structured enough that the two-year requirement will preclude investment from making a direct or immediate impact on the situation," Fraser says.