Questions 1 and 3

DISARMAMENT and nuclear weapons issues have captured plenty of grassroots attention in the last two years, so it is not surprising that the Nuclear Free Cambridge referendum has been a hot topic at public forums and around dinner tables for months. But the other two referenda that will also be decided next Tuesday each could have very significant effects on Cambridge's future, and each deserves careful consideration.

The wording of Question I is very clear: "Shall the city be authorized to compete for a license to construct and operate a community antenna system ('Cable Television System') and, if the issuing authority determines that the system proposed by the city will better serve the public interest than systems, if any, proposed by other license applicants, to acquire such a system?"

The answer lies in the question itself. The city should be allowed to apply for the Cambridge franchise, and only if it presents the best proposal, should it build a municipally-owned cable system. Cable TV is one of the fastest-growing entertainment industries nationally. Cambridge, while not ideal because of construction considerations, offers a cable operator an attractive market with plenty of white-collar households and average incomes across the city above $18,000.

With property tax revenues severely limited by Proposition 2 1 2 and the budgets of municipal departments stuck at 1981 levels, the city is forced to look for creative ways to generate fresh income. Cable TV offers such an option. Opponents, led by Cambridge Citizens for Risk-Free, Quality Cable, argue Cambridge is taking chances. But it is this kind of risk--calculated on a proven desire for an untapped service--that Cambridge must take if it hopes to continue to improve the quality of life.

But the question of who eventually gets the city's franchise steps ahead of the referendum's query. Cambridge should be allowed to compete for the sake of competition, to push private operators for their best package. The cable industry has been backsliding of late on franchise options, particularly in the area of public access. The presence of a municipally operated bidder will prevent this in Cambridge, ensuring its residents the full benefits possible from cable technology.

QUESTION 3 is a non-binding measure asking the city to adopt a six-point anti-displacement housing policy. It was placed on the ballot by a coalition of Cambridge tenants who developed the proposal to close what they perceived as loopholes in the city's rent control laws. Housing is a perennial political concern in Cambridge because market pressure could easily destroy the city's ethnic and economic diversity, transforming it into a bedroom community for Boston.

Approving the referendum will be an important symbolic step with city voters reaffirming the vows they took more than a decade ago when they approved the original rent control question. It will demonstrate to city officials and real estate interests alike that Cantabrigians are still determined to provide affordable homes for their low and moderate-income neighbors.

Beyond that gesture, the measure will be a mandate to city councilors and members of the rent board to design binding regulations and statutes to carry out the framework put forth in the referendum.

Questions 1 and 3 can each make Cambridge a better place to live, one by providing a new source of income for city services and the other by maintaining the city's diversity. Voters should recognize that fact in making the decisions with their ballots.