Rent Control in Cambridge
Some Background on SPOA , the abolish rent control movement and the
birth of the Cambridge Committee for Rent Control (CCRC)
by Nancy Hall
Once upon a time in 1994, a Cambridge group that called itself The Small
Property Owners Association (SPOA) spearheaded a statewide campaign to
eliminate rent control from the three cities in the state that still had
it - Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge. The SPOA turned out to be a front
for the Real Estate Industry, and not overly concerned with small
property owners. The Real Estate Industry and SPOA, it turned out, had a
goal, which was the elimination of any regulation of the housing market.
Cambridge was of course an easy target. A flawed, overly rigid rent
control system had gained notoriety for a condo conversion clause
intended to curb speculation. This clause backfired when it turned out
that a large section of condominium owners could not live in their own
condos - once they had sublet them. Then there were the isolated cases
of the "wealthy tenants" living in rent controlled apartments. Without
income eligibility guidelines, there was nothing to prevent this, and a
couple of well known Cambridge names were targeted because the
apartments they lived in were subject to rent controls. This provided
more fodder for the architects of the anti-rent control referendum,
Question 9, and they were able to create slogans that would encourage
voters in cities with no rent control to vote out rent control in
Boston, Brookline and Cambridge.
The Real Estate Industry put millions of dollars into a statewide
campaign to eliminate rent control. Armed with the strong Cambridge rent
control as an example, they took their campaign across the state, with a
well financed media blitz, complete with television ads depicting small
landlords being victimized by wealthy tenants, condominium owners
complaining that rent control did not let them live in their own condos,
and the slogan, "Get Government Out. Wealthy communities where many
large landlords lived were organized to vote out rent control in the
only cities that were affected by it.
When the frenzy and the dust had settled, and the election results came
in, Rent Control was defeated by a very narrow margin across the state,
with the only three cities directly affected by the referendum - those
with rent
control - voting overwhelming to keep it. Landlords vowed to be fair and
promised that the market would be kind. But the market proved otherwise,
turning cruel and greedy. Rent gouging became rampant--and it was soon
painfully clear that the market would not regulate itself, as whole
communities were destroyed and thousands were
driven from their homes.
In Cambridge the public schools began to empty, as families unable to
pay the rapidly escalating rents ($1,500 to over $2,000 a month) began
to flee the city. As the years went by rents and housing costs escalated
statewide - and even the prestigious universities in Cambridge were
reporting having trouble finding professors, because it was no longer
affordable to live here.
Boston newspapers began to report regularly about how vital workers had
been priced out of the city - police officers, nurses, and teachers
unable to afford to live near their jobs. The number of working homeless
families, pushed from city to city, from one motel to another-- made
headlines.
In Cambridge, what used to be stable communities, were now filled with
apartments occupied by many students crammed together - and newspapers
reported statistics that single and un-related adults had replaced
families. It got so bad that in 1999, faced with a market that showed no
mercy or restraint, pressured by organized tenants, the Cambridge City
Council declared a Housing Emergency. Tenant after tenant were being
forced out of the city, often through so-called "silent" evictions,
where, afraid to challenge the market rents, many just looked at their
new rent increases and left without a fight. Others formed tenant
associations and negotiated with their landlords to put a stop to the
escalating rents, agreements that would eventually expire.
But the declaration of a Housing emergency proved to be an empty
gesture. The Market ruled - turning into a God-like untouchable
institution. It became increasingly clear that the Real Estate Industry,
one of the only industries providing essential human rights that is
still not regulated, should bear a degree of responsibility for the
desecration of one of the most essential human rights - a roof over
one's head. A home. Shelter from the storm.
As I read these words it seems like I am re-creating a nightmare
scenario from an unenlightened past, one we were all able to wake up
from, as politicians and lawmakers opened their eyes and took action to
change it. But no, this horror is real, yet as it continued unchecked,
tenants and their supporters began working on a plan for a new form of
rent control - different than the previous one - that would address the
flaws and inequities of the old law.
Now it is 2003 and the people are no longer willing to endure the
nightmare. A Coalition of tenants, homeowners, concerned landlords, and
grassroots organizations got together and realized the necessity of
taking
the campaign directly to the people of Cambridge. They formed the
Committee for Cambridge Rent Control (CCRC) and launched, on Jan 30th,
at a large public forum, a petition campaign to put a new rent control
proposal on the ballot in this November election. This new rent control
law is so different from the old rent control law, that try as they
might (and we know they will) opponents of rent regulation will be hard
pressed to offer any credible opposition.
Following are some of the ways that this new rent control proposal
differs significantly from the old Cambridge rent control law:
1. The law does not prevent owners from occupying their own condominiums
as their primary residence.
2. To address the concerns of financial hardship for small property
owners, the new rent control law contains a "hardship exemption" for
small landlords who own buildings of six or less units, are subject to
rent control, and are able to demonstrate extreme difficulties,
especially due to financial or mortgage expenses.
3. To address the concerns that that too many tenants who don't need
rent control live in controlled units, the new law would allow landlords
to exempt from regulation otherwise controlled units in exchange for
units designated for low or moderate income local residents.
4. To address the concerns that the rent control board will be paid for
by the property taxes of property owners, the new law proposes it be
paid for by a yearly surcharge paid by tenants.
5. Rental units built or completed after the February, 1999 declaration
of a Housing Emergency by the city of Cambridge would NOT be subject to
the rent control law.
In addition, all rental units in owner-occupied structures of less than
four units would NOT be subject to rent control. For all those buildings
subject to the new rent control law, this Act will allow owners a fair
profit and operating income.
Is this nothing more than a Good Dream replacing the real nightmare? No
it is not. The CCRC obtained more than the necessary number of
signatures needed to get this proposal on the ballot. In November
Cambridge voters will have the opportunity to pass the proposal, which
will then require the Cambridge City Council to send it to the state
legislature as a "Home Rule Petition".
A few weekends ago, I sat at a table in the Harvest Co-op in Central
Square with others collecting signatures from the people shopping for
their groceries. We were struck by the enthusiasm of those wanting to
sign and help out in the campaign. However, there was a sad irony in the
large amount of people who came up and told us that, though they had
lived in Cambridge for a long time, they couldn't sign the petition
because they were no longer registered Cambridge voters. Why? Because
they had been forced out of Cambridge by the high rents.
The entire Ordinance and all other information, can be found on the Cambridge Committee for Rent Control website.
the CCRC phone # is 617-491-7272