Irate Tenants Allege Land-Flipping

The Cambridge City Council voted unanimously Monday night to ask Middlesex County District Attorney Thomas F. Reilly to investigate alleged "land-flipping" schemes at two Cambridge apartment complexes.

The council suspended its rules in the middle of the meeting's public comment session to vote on the issue after residents of the buildings located at 59 Norfolk St. and 6-10 Porter Rd. emotionally told councillors they feared losing their homes because of rising rents.

The two buildings have been sold at least three times in the past month, according to residents who say they are no longer sure who their landlord is.

It is not illegal to buy and sell property quickly, but it is illegal to list false selling prices on deeds to inflate the price of the property.

In March the property sold for $1 million; in April a $1.35 million option was sold on the property.

One of the transitory owners of the buildings was Boston's Todd Schaeffer, who is currently facing an indictment for real estate larceny and mortgage irregularities in Plymouth and Suffolk counties.

Residents say the building's original owners, Sidney and Norman Gross of Brookline, sold the properties in order to "distance themselves" from code violations.

At last night's meeting, more than eight of the property's tenants crowded around the public comment podium in City Hall's Sullivan Chamber to address councillors.

"We will fight for our children," said Dominguez Rivero, a tearful 20-year Cambridge resident, her two young children clinging to her leg, during the public comment session. "We will fight until our last breath."

Led by Save Central Square's Bill Marcotte, the residents wrote a letter to Reilly asking for an investigation.

In other business, the council heard pleas from Cantabrigians living west of Kendall Square on Broadway to ask the city's zoning board to reconsider plans by the Bulfinch Co. of Boston to construct two buildings in the area.

The 300,000 square foot structures would house a mix of office and retail space, as well as several stories of above-ground parking, according to literature distributed by residents opposed to the project.

"The bigger building is just way too big," Elissa N. Carlson, who lives near the site of the proposed development, told the council.

Carlson said she is not opposed to the construction itself, but fears that the size of the buildings would "deaden the quality of the street-scape."