Senate Approves Home Rule

BOSTON--The state Senate narrowly voted yesterday to allow Boston and Cambridge to spread out the abolition of rent control over five years, but by a margin too small to override the veto Gov. William F. Weld '66 has promised.

Despite its unsuccessful attempts to delay the decision, the Republican leadership claimed victory in its battle against prolonging rent control.

"Rent control is dead," said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees (R-East Longmeadow) following the votes. "We have the votes to sustain the veto. The arrogance of the politicians in these communities did not win, the voters won."

The Senate voted 19-17 to approve Cambridge's home-rule petition to gradually eliminate rent control for elderly, disabled and low- and moderate-income tenants. The Senate also approved, 19-16, Boston's petition to phase out rent control, but rejected a similar plan from Brookline by a vote of 22-13.

Two-thirds of the Senate, or 27 of the 40 senators, is required to override a gubernatorial veto.

The House of Representatives approved the petitions last Monday. Yesterday's vote sends the petitions of Boston and Cambridge to the governor's desk. But Weld has repeatedly said he will veto any petitions to maintain rent control. "I don't like any of the ones that have been drafted," he told reporters yesterday.

Cambridge, Boston and Brookline--the only three communities in Massachusetts with rent control laws--filed the petitions after the passage last month of Question 9, the ballot initiative to abolish rent control effective on January 1.

Of the three home-rule petitions, Boston's generated the most debate. The city's petition allows it to write a new rent control ordinance but gives no guidelines for who the new system would protect.

The Cambridge plan would eliminate rent control by July 1 for most units, but would extend rent control through 1999 for families earning less than 80 percent of the Housing and Urban Department (HUD) median-income guidelines, and for elderly and disabled tenants.

Rent control--which the city adopted in 1970--restricts the rents of approximately 16,000 of the city's units, more than a third of Cambridge's total housing stock.

Brookline's petition asked the state to allow a vacancy decontrol plan started in 1991 to continue.

The rent control debate divided the Senate along partisan lines, with Republican leaders heading a vocal effort to amend, delay and finally reject the petitions.

"The voters already voted," lees said. "They don't want rent control."

"This body should be ashamed of itself to be addressing an issue like this when are there are literally thousands of bills bottled up in committee," he added.

"Rent control is unfair, it's unjust and most important...it's un-American," agreed Sen. Richard R. Tisei (R-Wakefield).

"These communities receive a disproportionate piece of the local aid pie as a result that their property values are depressed," Tisei continued. He said rent control laws in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline cost the state over $30 million a year in potential property tax revenue.

Tisei said the state should use revenue generated from rent control's abolition to subsidize elderly and low-income tenants displaced by Question 9's implementation.

Sen. Jane M. Swift (R-North Adams) said rent control places unfair burdens on landlords to subsidize their tenants. "It's unfair to expect a handful of individuals to meet the responsibility that should be a collective responsibility," she said.

Tisei attempted to amend Boston's petition to deny the city any additional funding for the continuation of its rent control laws.

The proposed amendment, which was defeated 25-11, drew a storm of criticism from the Democrats.

"It is politically divisive, its motivation is mean-spirited, and its intellectual premise is fatuous," said Sen. Thomas F. Birmingham '72 (D-Chelsea). Birmingham said many state laws have the effect of depressing property values besides rent control, including restrictions on supermarkets and skyscrapers.

"We are criticized repeatedly for allowing issues to linger and remain in a dormant state," said Sen. Robert E. Travaglini (D-East Boston).

"The effect [of rent control] on local aid is minimal at best," Travaglini added.

Following the defeat of the Republican amendment, Travaglini and Sen. Marian Walsh (D-West Roxbury) successfully amended the Boston plan to include a "sunset clause," which would extend rent control for the same groups protected under Cambridge's plan, but only through 1999.

Under the amendment, which passed by a voice vote, rent control would be eliminated for everyone else by March 31.

The rejection of Brookline's petition came as a surprise to some Democrats.

"There were concerns about the lack of a sunset clause and a voluntary means test," Travaglini said. An income-based means test is used to determine rent-control eligibility.

A last-minute amendment by Sen. Lois G. Pines (D-Newton) to add a sunset clause failed to save the petition, and it is too late for the town to get another petition passed before Question 9 takes effect on January 1.

Governor's Decision Now

Nearly all sides agree the rent control decision is now Governor Weld's.

The Democrats will be unable to override a veto unless they can recapture at least eight votes in the Senate.

A number of Democrats switched sides and voted against the petitions. While only nine senators are Republicans, 17 voted against Cambridge's plan.

"It's not a very enjoyable thought, Travaglini admitted after the votes.

But the Democratic leader said he will try to lobby Weld to sign the home-rule petitions. "We're going to make every attempt to do so, but obviously we have an uphill fight ahead of us."

"The decision is the governor's," said Cambridge City Councillor Kathleen L. Born, one of six councillors who supported the city's petition.

"It astounded me, the depth of the opposition not only from the Republican leadership but from Democrats from across the state," Born said. "I was diernayed."

She said the city council will lobby Weld to sign the petitions. "This will not be a veto of which Governor Weld will feel proud on the national scene," Born added. "I would hope that Governor Weld has a heart."

Weld, a Cambridge resident, was re-elected last month to a second four year term.

The Republican governor has said any petition to preserve rent control would counteract the will of the state's voters. Question 9 was passed by a 51 to 49 percent margin on Election Day

The House of Representatives approved the petitions last Monday. Yesterday's vote sends the petitions of Boston and Cambridge to the governor's desk. But Weld has repeatedly said he will veto any petitions to maintain rent control. "I don't like any of the ones that have been drafted," he told reporters yesterday.

Cambridge, Boston and Brookline--the only three communities in Massachusetts with rent control laws--filed the petitions after the passage last month of Question 9, the ballot initiative to abolish rent control effective on January 1.

Of the three home-rule petitions, Boston's generated the most debate. The city's petition allows it to write a new rent control ordinance but gives no guidelines for who the new system would protect.

The Cambridge plan would eliminate rent control by July 1 for most units, but would extend rent control through 1999 for families earning less than 80 percent of the Housing and Urban Department (HUD) median-income guidelines, and for elderly and disabled tenants.

Rent control--which the city adopted in 1970--restricts the rents of approximately 16,000 of the city's units, more than a third of Cambridge's total housing stock.

Brookline's petition asked the state to allow a vacancy decontrol plan started in 1991 to continue.

The rent control debate divided the Senate along partisan lines, with Republican leaders heading a vocal effort to amend, delay and finally reject the petitions.

"The voters already voted," lees said. "They don't want rent control."

"This body should be ashamed of itself to be addressing an issue like this when are there are literally thousands of bills bottled up in committee," he added.

"Rent control is unfair, it's unjust and most important...it's un-American," agreed Sen. Richard R. Tisei (R-Wakefield).

"These communities receive a disproportionate piece of the local aid pie as a result that their property values are depressed," Tisei continued. He said rent control laws in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline cost the state over $30 million a year in potential property tax revenue.

Tisei said the state should use revenue generated from rent control's abolition to subsidize elderly and low-income tenants displaced by Question 9's implementation.

Sen. Jane M. Swift (R-North Adams) said rent control places unfair burdens on landlords to subsidize their tenants. "It's unfair to expect a handful of individuals to meet the responsibility that should be a collective responsibility," she said.

Tisei attempted to amend Boston's petition to deny the city any additional funding for the continuation of its rent control laws.

The proposed amendment, which was defeated 25-11, drew a storm of criticism from the Democrats.

"It is politically divisive, its motivation is mean-spirited, and its intellectual premise is fatuous," said Sen. Thomas F. Birmingham '72 (D-Chelsea). Birmingham said many state laws have the effect of depressing property values besides rent control, including restrictions on supermarkets and skyscrapers.

"We are criticized repeatedly for allowing issues to linger and remain in a dormant state," said Sen. Robert E. Travaglini (D-East Boston).

"The effect [of rent control] on local aid is minimal at best," Travaglini added.

Following the defeat of the Republican amendment, Travaglini and Sen. Marian Walsh (D-West Roxbury) successfully amended the Boston plan to include a "sunset clause," which would extend rent control for the same groups protected under Cambridge's plan, but only through 1999.

Under the amendment, which passed by a voice vote, rent control would be eliminated for everyone else by March 31.

The rejection of Brookline's petition came as a surprise to some Democrats.

"There were concerns about the lack of a sunset clause and a voluntary means test," Travaglini said. An income-based means test is used to determine rent-control eligibility.

A last-minute amendment by Sen. Lois G. Pines (D-Newton) to add a sunset clause failed to save the petition, and it is too late for the town to get another petition passed before Question 9 takes effect on January 1.

Governor's Decision Now

Nearly all sides agree the rent control decision is now Governor Weld's.

The Democrats will be unable to override a veto unless they can recapture at least eight votes in the Senate.

A number of Democrats switched sides and voted against the petitions. While only nine senators are Republicans, 17 voted against Cambridge's plan.

"It's not a very enjoyable thought, Travaglini admitted after the votes.

But the Democratic leader said he will try to lobby Weld to sign the home-rule petitions. "We're going to make every attempt to do so, but obviously we have an uphill fight ahead of us."

"The decision is the governor's," said Cambridge City Councillor Kathleen L. Born, one of six councillors who supported the city's petition.

"It astounded me, the depth of the opposition not only from the Republican leadership but from Democrats from across the state," Born said. "I was diernayed."

She said the city council will lobby Weld to sign the petitions. "This will not be a veto of which Governor Weld will feel proud on the national scene," Born added. "I would hope that Governor Weld has a heart."

Weld, a Cambridge resident, was re-elected last month to a second four year term.

The Republican governor has said any petition to preserve rent control would counteract the will of the state's voters. Question 9 was passed by a 51 to 49 percent margin on Election Day