Tyranny of the Tenant

THE RENT control controversy that has dominated Cambridge politics for the past two years is generally portrayed as a fundamentally two-sided issue. But even the supposed "anti-rent control" activists do not propose to dismantle entirely Cambridge's regulations. More and more the debate has come to rest on a single issue: whether non-needy apartment residents are entitled to low, regulated rents.

Even the leader of Cambridge's anti-rent control faction, City Councilor William H. Walsh, does not propose to eliminate controls on apartments rented to low-income, handicapped, and elderly tenants. Walsh's unsuccessful 1986 rent proposal would have set aside 30% of all rental units for the needy. Need would be assessed by a means test, similar no doubt to the annoying but sensible financial aid forms many of us fill out year after year.

Although this particular aspect of the Walsh Plan is reasonable, rent control supporters--led by City Councilor David E. Sullivan--generally prefer the existing Cambridge controls. In the meantime, 2,500 citizens languish on the Cambridge public housing waiting lists that date until 1992; professionals seeking absurdly cheap apartments offer "finders" up to $1000 for information leading to the discovery of a below market-rate unit; and libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick rented a 2500 square foot apartment--complete with jacuzzi, sauna, and balcony--that was nonetheless subject to rent control restrictions.

DAVID E. Sullivan and his following have offered few reasons for continuing rent control to the non-needy--reasons ranging from the absurd to the blatantly self-interested. Supporters say that the law was instituted to protect rental units, not the people who live in them.

But the impetus for Cambridge's 1970 law that established rent control was the 33 percent citywide rise in rents that year and the consequent eviction of numerous tenants from apartments in the Cambridge Port district. Indeed, the law explicitly cited the "emergency conditions" presented by the "substantial and increasing shortage of rental housing accommodations for families of low and moderate income and abnormally high rents."

In any case, laws are ultimately designed for the good of people; I don't think anyone is seriously worried about the welfare of apartments, houses, or any other inanimate objects.

Sullivan himself offers the only coherent justifications for providing low rents to the non-needy. He argues that a means test would cause landlords to discriminate against low-income tenants since they could charge wealthier renters more.

But even with rent control there are strong reasons for favoring the more affluent. Landlords can rely on them to pay their rents on time and to buy the units should the laws be changed to allow condominium conversion.

WHAT THE defense of universal rent control boils down to is the worry that without it, in the words of David E., "low-and moderate-income working people...would not be able to afford to live in Cambridge." Universal rent control is a means of protecting the demographic make-up of Cambridge, lest its middle class move out and leave the city a miniature Manhattan of the wealthy and the poor.

How ironic that precisely the blue-collar middle-class districts of Cambridge comprise the core of the rent control opposition! These long-time Cambridge residents consider rent control a boon to the rich. They find that the policy raises everyone's local taxes, while a third of the units go to tenants who make more than the national median income, and nine percent go to tenants earning over $55,000 per year.

Clearly, if the middle classes--whom rent control supporters allege would move out of Cambridge--themselves oppose rent control, then universal rent control is like parrying with a windmill, protecting against a threat that does not exist. Manhattan-haters can take a deep breath, get a hold of themselves, and sleep secure in the knowledge that Cambridge is safe.

THE PROBLEM remains to determine just how permissive a Cambridge means test should be. Since, at present, only 29 percent of the controlled units are occupied by tenants who earn less than $19,000 a year, Walsh's proposal that 30 percent of Cambridge's apartments be set aside for the needy, under rent control rules, seems fairly reasonable.

The fact remains that there is no justification for permitting non-needy tenants to benefit unduly from rent control. In February of 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of rent control, provided that it does not constitute, in Thurgood Marshall's phrase, a "private price-fixing conspiracy."

What else would you call a policy that interferes with the right of landlords to determine their rents for no socially justifiable reason? Plain and simple using rent control to aid the wealthy at the expense of property owners unfairly scapegoat the unpopular landlord of American myth.