CCA for City Council

The race for Cambridge City Council has suddenly degenerated into one of the worst name-calling affairs in many years. Unlike the tame contest for School Committee, the City Council election currently features charges of corruption and immorality that have gotten citizens excited--if not well-informed. Yet while the accusations fly back and forth, the basic issue in the Council contest remains the same as in the School election: giving the Cambridge Civic Association the chance to show what good government can accomplish.

The CCA Councillors in the last session were able to demonstrate good government only as a minority of four on the nine-man Council. This year, the CCA is trying to regain the majority control it had held for a decade before 1953. It has screened all candidates and come up with a non-partisan slate of ten, including its four incumbents Edward A. Crane, Joseph A. deGuglielmo, Marcus Morton, and Hyman Pill. The CCA has also endorsed Mrs. Pearl K. Wise, who has just completed a successful term on the School Committee, as well as Edward G. Bellis, Martin T. Camacho, Bradlee F. Clarke, Arthur R. Hall, and Witold J. Pladziewicz. Each of these candidates is committed to CCA's reform platform and each deserves election.

Of the non-CCA candidates, Charles A. Watson is the originator of most of the name-calling in the present election. Not only has he intimated that CCA candidate Hall failed to support an illegitimate child; he has also accused the CCA incumbents of losing revenue totalling $271 per month through sale of a city-owned gasoline station. The first charge has been frankly admitted by Hall, who says he neglected to support the child only during his three years in the Air Force. And the gasoline charge is misleading, to say the least, for the Councillors sold the property in order to make way for a giant million dollar office building which will give the city in taxes far more than a meagre $271 per month.

Realizing that these issues are scarcely central to good city government, the League of Women Voters has tried desperately to record each candidate's stand on the sole question of urban renewal in Cambridge. But the 50-word statements collected by the League offer little help, for most candidates say only that they are for good and against evil. A glance at the actual voting record, however, gives a clearer picture: the four CCA Councillors voted solidly for a definite program of slum clearance, while Edward J. Sullivan and John D. Lynch, two "independents" who are running for re-election, opposed the project.

The basic issue at stake on Nov. 8 is not urban renewal--however desirable this is; nor are an illegitimate child and a gasoline station important. The real question is whether Cambridge will support an organization known throughout the nation for its dedication to good local government.