How 1-2-3 Defeated Its Own Supporters

Throughout this fall's campaign, Cambridge rent control activists billed Frederick R. Meyer, author of Proposition 1-2-3, as "Public Enemy Number One."

But this weekend, those same activists were ready to give him a medal: Instead of killing rent control, as opponents contended the referendum would do, 1-2-3 strengthened it immeasurably.

Buoyed by voters' overwhelming rejection of the referendum--which would have dramatically altered the city's rent control system--opponents of 1-2-3 scored a political coup. In last week's elections, pro-tenant councillors secured six of the nine seats on City Council--the highest majority since 1973.

"I actually think Fred has done us a great favor by putting this on the ballot," said outgoing Councillor David E. Sullivan. "We're very grateful. We hope he does it again two years from now."

And, Sullivan added, "If he'd pay me as a temporary worker, I'd go out and collect signatures for him."

Proposition 1-2-3 would have allowed some tenants in rent-controlled housing to buy their apartments, thus removing them from the city's stock of affordable housing. Such a change, critics argued, would drive low-income families out of the city by giving landlords an extra incentive to rent to the wealthy.

But Meyer contended that 1-2-3 was designed to increase homeownership, not eliminate rent control. He said people turned out to defeat the referendum primarily because of the way opponents framed the debate.

"It's very hard," said Meyer. "People just don't campaign for rights they don't have."

But 1-2-3's rejection may be most important in signaling a change in the tactics of the Independents, a semi-official slate of candidates named to distinguish itself from the liberal Cambridge Civic Association (CCA).

Proposition 1-2-3's failure was so overwhelming that joking rumors abounded this week that 1-2-3 was really part of a CCA master plan to sweep the election.

This fall, Proposition 1-2-3 split the Independents. One group of pro-1-2-3 candidates--including Councillor William H. Walsh--formed the "Today's Independents" slate, which hoped to capitalize on support for the referendum.

Traditional Independents like Councillor Walter J. Sullivan made no secret of their support for 1-2-3, but they did not make it a significant part of their campaigns.

A third camp of challengers, modeling themselves after Mayor Alfred E. Vellucci, campaigned as pro-tenant Independents opposed to 1-2-3.

But attempts of Walsh and Today's Independents to make the ballot initiative the central campaign issue may have ended up hurting the referendum's quiet supporters. Sullivan, for years the city's top vote-getter, ran a distant third in this year's campaign.

And longtime Councillor Thomas W. Danehy--who voted for 1-2-3 last year but reversed his position during the campaign--lost the council seat he had held for 22 years.

Not Surprised

But Walsh said yesterday he is not really surprised that the pro-tenant forces were able to wrest control away the Independents.

Said Walsh, "They always had the numbers to do that."