News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
A Suffolk County judge's ruling yesterday could stall the abolition of Cambridge's rent control laws, which is currently scheduled for January 1.
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Hiller Zobel issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enactment of five ballot measures approved earlier this month--including the question that banned rent control.
In his ruling, Zobel said the Secretary of State's office might not have provided voters with enough information on the ballot questions.
Because this year's ballot had nine complex questions. Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly decided there was not adequate space to print explanations of the questions on the ballot. Installed, his office mailed pamphlets explaining the measures to voters and placed descriptions of the question in all polling places across the state.
The Governor's Council had planned to certify the results of the ballot questions at a meeting today.
Zobel's ruling targeted only the five ballot questions with the closest results, including Question 9, whose passage was supposed to end rent control in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline on January 1.
Cambridge City Councillor Jonathan S. Myers said that because the results on some questions were close, Zobel's restraining order is justified.
"I did think that the fact that the ballot questions were not written on the ballots was a very disconcerting issue to me," Myers said. "In very close elections on very complicated issues, substantial questions are at stake."
But Jon R. Maddo, a Cambridge attorney who wrote Question 9, said this temporary restraining order will probably not have any long-term impact.
"There was a technical violation of the election laws in the failure to have Salim E. Kabawat, treasurer for the Massachusetts Homeowners' coalition, said he said he believes voters were well-informed on the ballot questions. "We have a very well-educated electorate. All the question were in the newspapers," he said. "I think the court is going to find this thing is just a smokescreen that some people are trying to raise." Kabawat said it would be unfair if the ballot questions were thrown out after interest groups spent so much money in support of the initiative. "It will be quite a thing for them to throw out all the ballot questions, with all they money that went into them," he said. "Who is going to be liable for that money?" Home Rule Also at stake in this process is the home rule petition passed two weeks ago by the Cambridge City Council seeking to retain some form of rent control, despite the passage of Question 9. Yesterday, the Massachusetts House of Rep- resentatives overwhelmingly passed home rule petitions from Cambridge, Boston and Brook line. Cambridge Vice Mayor Sheila T. Russell said last night that the petition will continue to work its very through the state legislature. "The petitions need to be approved by the Senate and Governor William F. Weld '66. "It's already over there," Russell said. "It would be up to the Senate to decide that issue." Myers said he voted "present," rather than "yes," on the home rule petition in anticipation of legal challenges to Question9. "I wanted to reserve judgement on the petition in light of the fact that there were some withstanding legal questions," he said. ("What happens if the referendum is set aside or affected in some way [is that]the city would be left without [its original] rent control laws.") But Russell said she believes the Cambridge home rule petition contains a clause that would invalidate its own provisions if Question 9 were overturned. Despite the restraining order, the Cambridge Tenants' Union will continue to circulate a referendum petition seeking to repeal the city council's home rule petition, said Bryle Breny, a tenant and rent control advocate. "A local group is going to circulate a referendum petition on the vote of the city council when they passed this home rule petition," she said. "That means the legislature would not have a request from the city to pass this new terrible bill that's not even a compromise but a cop-out." In addition to the rent control proposal, the four other measures blocked by zobel include Question 3, which allows a check box for voluntary contributions, on student term bills; Question 4, the "term limits" measure; Question 5, which repeals the state's "Blue Laws"; and Question 8, which would require the legislature to spent gasoline tax revenues on highway repair and construction. Associated Press wire reports were used in this story.
Salim E. Kabawat, treasurer for the Massachusetts Homeowners' coalition, said he said he believes voters were well-informed on the ballot questions.
"We have a very well-educated electorate. All the question were in the newspapers," he said. "I think the court is going to find this thing is just a smokescreen that some people are trying to raise."
Kabawat said it would be unfair if the ballot questions were thrown out after interest groups spent so much money in support of the initiative.
"It will be quite a thing for them to throw out all the ballot questions, with all they money that went into them," he said. "Who is going to be liable for that money?"
Home Rule
Also at stake in this process is the home rule petition passed two weeks ago by the Cambridge City Council seeking to retain some form of rent control, despite the passage of Question 9.
Yesterday, the Massachusetts House of Rep- resentatives overwhelmingly passed home rule petitions from Cambridge, Boston and Brook line.
Cambridge Vice Mayor Sheila T. Russell said last night that the petition will continue to work its very through the state legislature. "The petitions need to be approved by the Senate and Governor William F. Weld '66.
"It's already over there," Russell said. "It would be up to the Senate to decide that issue."
Myers said he voted "present," rather than "yes," on the home rule petition in anticipation of legal challenges to Question9.
"I wanted to reserve judgement on the petition in light of the fact that there were some withstanding legal questions," he said. ("What happens if the referendum is set aside or affected in some way [is that]the city would be left without [its original] rent control laws.")
But Russell said she believes the Cambridge home rule petition contains a clause that would invalidate its own provisions if Question 9 were overturned.
Despite the restraining order, the Cambridge Tenants' Union will continue to circulate a referendum petition seeking to repeal the city council's home rule petition, said Bryle Breny, a tenant and rent control advocate.
"A local group is going to circulate a referendum petition on the vote of the city council when they passed this home rule petition," she said. "That means the legislature would not have a request from the city to pass this new terrible bill that's not even a compromise but a cop-out."
In addition to the rent control proposal, the four other measures blocked by zobel include Question 3, which allows a check box for voluntary contributions, on student term bills; Question 4, the "term limits" measure; Question 5, which repeals the state's "Blue Laws"; and Question 8, which would require the legislature to spent gasoline tax revenues on highway repair and construction.
Associated Press wire reports were used in this story.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.