Surreal Fight Over Rent Control Will be Settled in a Boston Court

Some Cambridge residents like rent control; others hate it. But a sizable group of civic leaders and community activists, it seems, love nothing more than to fight about it.

Entering the rent control debate can sometimes be like departing for an alternative, surreal universe, where one little number is reason enough to put one's life on the line--or, if that doesn't work, sue.

Numbers were the topic of debate this week as the long-running argument over imposing limits in the amount landlords can charge shifted to the 10th floor of the Suffolk County Courthouse. It is here that rent control opponents have sued to place a referendum about the contentious issue on the November state ballot.

The anti-rent control lobby has gone to court because the Massachusetts Secretary of State recently ruled that its petition for a referendum lacked the required number of signatures.

The secretary's office said the petition, which was organized by the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition, contained only 69,937 valid signatures. That came painfully close to--but ultimately fell short of--the 70,286 signatures required by law.

In the suit, Denise A. Jillson, president of the homeowners coalition, and other plaintiffs argue that they collected 93,000 signatures on more than 14,000 petitions. The plaintiffs say that out of that number, enough were valid to put the referendum on the ballot.

But a group of rent control advocates led by Donald Veach, treasurer of the Cambridge-based Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections, has also sued the secretary of state in an effort to ensure the issue does not hit the state ballot.

Veach's group contends that the secretary of state certified more signatures than were actually valid.

But Jillson and the rent control opponents maintain that 831 signatures were improperly disqualified. These were the signatures of voters who changed addresses or signed with their nicknames.

In addition, 334 signatures appeared on petitions that did not contain the required authorization of registrars in the cities in which they were collected. Rent control opponents argue that these should be counted.

Jillson also challenged a rule that limits the number of signatures that can be counted from each county. The secretary of state disallowed 3,583 signatures which the government said exceeded that limit.

But Judge Martha Sossman upheld the county limit rule this week. The judge, however, also ruled in favor of Jillson's group when she decided to count the 334 signatures from petitions which did not have proper registrar approval.

Burton A. Nadler, an attorney for the rent control advocates, said the judge's ruling on the 334 signatures could be grounds for appeal. But the lawyer also said his opponents might be entitled to an appeal on Sossman's decision to uphold the limits of signatures per county.

And while rent control opponents attempt to find the 400 valid signatures that will out a referendum on the ballot, rent control advocates are also playing a numbers game. They maintain, in fact, that the secretary of state's count is too high to begin with.

The advocates allege that 1,149 signatures are from people who are not registered to vote.

And the advocates also argue that an additional 600 signatures were obtained through fraud or forgery. One person reportedly signed 300 different names, according to one plaintiff.

During court proceedings this week, lawyers for both groups of plaintiffs questioned registrars from municipalities around the state in an effort to establish whether signers were actually registered voters.

What's Next?

Members of both sides are predicting victory, but that doesn't matter. In the world of rent control, no one ever loses. There are always appeals.

Nadler, the attorney for the pro-rent control plaintiffs, said the trial has gone well for his side so far.

"They're cutting into [our numbers], but not as well as we expected," Nadler said.

But Malcolm L. Kaufman, a member of at least two pro-rent control groups in the city, was not so confident that his side will prevail.

"The judge seemed sympathetic to them [the anti-rent control plaintiffs]," Kaufman said. "It's somewhat disconcerting."

William A. McDermott Jr., the lawyer for the opponents of rent control, said in an interview that he is optimistic about the trial. But he added that it was too early to tell who would win.

Nevertheless, "if the trial were to end today, we would have enough signatures," McDermott added.

The trial is expected to last at least one more week.

Bill Cavellini, a Cambridge taxi-driver who is a member of the Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections and a plaintiff in the pro-rent control suit, said that an appeal in the highly contentious case is likely.

But Cavellini noted that any appeal will have to be conducted quickly. The November ballot is scheduled to be certified at the state constitutional convention in June.

If the referendum is put on the ballot, rent control supporters like Cavellini fear that opponents will have greater resources to finance a statewide campaign against the rent limits.

Cavellini said rent control opponents have "unlimited resources."

And kaufman, a prominent rent control supporter in Cambridge, said he, too, does not want to see the issue on the state ballot.

"It might be easier for them to get a favorable vote statewide because they have access to real estate money," Kaufman said. "The terrain is much more favorable to them."

Jillson, the homeowners' coalition president, is confident. In initial polling, she said rent control has garnered little support outside Cambridge and Boston, two of the few cities that employ it.

But newly-elected Cambridge City Councillor Kathleen L. Born promised that if the issue comes to a statewide vote, "tenants will raise funds."

"It may be a David and Goliath," she said, "but you know who won that battle.

Fraud Allegations

Allegations of misconduct are not unusual in the frequently bruising rent control battle, where technical infractions can result in charges of fraud.

There are a lot of little rules to break, and the people involved in the debate are the kind of folks who know what happened at..., say, the 1918 state constitutional convention.

In this latest skirmish over how to count petition signatures, the pro-rent control forces have accused their opponents of unethical tactics in soliciting support.

"We're very confident that we've done it with honesty and integrity and we regret that the other side has not," said Cavellini, the Cambridge taxi driver and fervent rent control supporter.

"We have no way of knowing if it's a conspiracy, but we know that there was fraud," he added.

In addition to the instance when one person signed 300 different names on a petition--a case of fraud which rent control opponents admit to--the petition drive saw several other alleged infractions, Cavellini said.

A lawyer from the secretary of state's office testified this week that some of the state's voter registration lists appeared to be missing, and Cavellini accused the anti-rent control group of stealing them.

The voter lists were used by both parties to verify the signatures.

Cavellini also said the wording of the petition was "very confusing" and made it sound as if the petitioners favored rent control. Such tactics violate the spirit of the state's initiative petition process, according to attorney Nadler.

"What the Jillson plaintiffs did in collecting signatures is not in keeping with what the [Massachusetts] Constitutional Convention of 1918 intended the initiative petition process to be," Nadler said.

The Current rules for getting a referendum on the state ballot were established during that convention.

Jillson admitted in an interview this week that some fraud was committed during the petition drive. But she said violations were inevitable in a process with so many signatures.

She said the homeowners coalition itself did not engage in fraudulent practices. Instead, signatures were obtained fraudulently by a few rogue National Voter Outreach workers who were being paid to collect them.

Home Rule

Localist passions run deep when the courtroom talk turns to rent control.

Cambridge rent-control supporters, in fact, say it is a city issue and is no business of the rest of the state.

Kaufman said he will be a plaintiff in a soon-to-be-filed lawsuit challenging the anti-rent control referendum as a violation of the home-rule guarantee embodied in the state's constitution.

Kaufman said his suit will be against the state attorney general, which certified the referendum as constitutional before the petition drive began.

"Cambridge should have the prerogative to determine its own character," Kaufman said.

Born, the newly-elected city councillor, said she also believes a statewide referendum on rent-control would be a violation of home rule.

"It's very much a Cambridge issue," Born said. "Cambridge is subject to pressures of development and real estate that no other place in the state is subject to."

The city, Born said, is in the way a victim of its own popularity. "So many people want to live in Cambridge," she said.

City Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55, who is a plaintiff in the pro-rent control suit against the secretary of state, said those supporting the referendum are "trying to undermine the authority of Cambridge."

But Jillson and other opponents of rent control claimed rent control is a state issue. The homeowners' coalition president points out, for example, that Cambridge forfeits $12 million a year in property taxes and Boston, which also employs rent-control, forfeits $17 million a year.

"This comes from state aid funds," Jillson said. "All taxpayers in Massachusetts pay for rent control."

"Should [the state] cut back programs because Cambridge is subsidizing high income tenants?" she asked.

City Councillor William H. Walsh, who was re-elected to the council last year by antirent control voters despite being under federal indictment for bank fraud, said he, too, agrees that rent control should be decided at the state level.

The Issue

Rent control is the issue that changes everything, supporters say. It can prevent homelessness, help the poor and even stop massive street riots before they start.

"Rents [in the area] are totally obscene," said Kaufman, a member of the steering committee the Cambridge Tenants Union. "It's totally appropriate for the government to intervene for consumer protection."

"Who the hell pays the kind of money for rent?" he asked.

Kauffman alternatively called area rents "astronomical" and "extortionist."

Kaufman said that if rent control was abolished in the city, Cambridge would "probably become more homogeneous. Much whiter, much richer, much more professional."

Cavellini said rent control helps prevent homelessness because it allows more people to afford housing.

And "lawlessness" is also reduced by the measure, the cab driver said. Before rent control was instituted in Cambridge, Cavellini said tenants were often evicted without just cause.

And that in turn, he said, invariably resulted in hundreds or even thousands of citizens taking to the streets to prevent the police from carrying out the evictions.

These risks aside, area real estate consultant Andrew M. Olins said that rent control is simply bad economic policy.

"In macroeconomic terms, controls on rents have never been a solution to the real estate problem," Olins said.

Olins said rent control is a waste of public funds. "It's the public sector supplying subsidies, which drain funds from the public budget to people who don't need it," he said.

And Walsh, who could finish his term on the city council in a federal jail cell, said rent control amounts to "Subsidizing the rich" because many wealthy people live in rent-controlled housing.

"It's been a disaster for 23 years in the city and it's time for a change," Walsh said. "Don't perpetuate bad policy because it's politically correct."

Why is it politically correct?

"Because if I offered to subsidize your col-