Vote Yes on 9

The history of rent control in Cambridge is not pretty. Enacted with good intentions, the policy has instead distorted the housing market and accomplished few of its stated goals.

Rather than consistently providing low-income housing, rent control has created a byzantine city bureaucracy that enforces petty regulations. As often as not, those who can afford much more pricey apartments are living on the cheap, at the expense of taxpayers. The freeloaders include such luminaries as Cambridge Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72.

Meanwhile, the policy has made life miserable for many property owners, who often can't take in enough rent to keep up the properties they own-or, heaven forfend, make a profit.

With Question 9 finally on the ballot--after much legal wrangling by rent control supporters--Cambridge and Massachusetts have a chance to start over, and restore the free-market system It's a chance that shouldn't be missed.

Indeed, the most serious objection we see to the proposal to outlaw rent control schemes comes not from defenders of Cambridge's policy--on that count, there is little to defend. Rather, the objection comes at a deeper level--whether the state should be able to dictate city policies, a reasonable question in many cases. But not in this one.

What is being violated in cities with rent control is a fundamental right--the right to property. This nation's Constitution labelled the rights to life, liberty and property as some of the most fundamental freedoms human beings have. Just as the federal government has stepped in to overrule state policies that violate fundamental rights, so does the state have that right when a city adopts such policies.

When Cambridge began rent control, it was a groundbreaking experiment in urban planning. Now that we've seen the results, it's time to end the science project.