Property Owners Sue City to Repeal Rent Control Law

Known in Cambridge for its frequent public protests and drawn out testimonies to the City Council, the Small Property Owners' Association (SPOA) has found another outlet to express its opposition to the rent control system--the Middlesex County Superior Court.

The property owners' lawsuit against the city, filed last January, asks the court to declare the 22-year-old rent-control system unconstitutional.

The court will consider the city's motion to dismiss the case today.

Even if the case is dismissed, the small band of landlords who have already invested over $100,000 of their own money into the litigation, have pledged to appeal and keep pressing their case.

The lawsuit charges the city with nine counts of constitutional violation, according to John Natale, a member of the Small Property Owners Association (SPOA), the plaintiffs in the case.

The suit, based on a two-part, SPOA-commissioned study, alleges that rent control failed to accomplish its goals and has become a disproportionate public burden, when it should be the responsibility of the city government.

"It sounds noble, but in reality, the city is not paying one dime towards subsidizing tenants. The owners are," said Denise E. Jillson, co-chair of SPOA.

Rent control was originally adopted to provide affordable housing for low to moderate fixed-income earners because of a "housing emergency."

But according to Jillson, there is no longer a housing emergency in Cambridge--the vacancy rate is currently 6 percent, she says. In the SPOA report, figures indicate that the maximum rents landlords can collect--"fair net operating income"--do not cover the minimum costs of maintaining the property.

The study, conducted by the same person the city hired three years ago to compile "Cambridge Housing Challenges," also states that most rent control tenants can afford to pay a higher rent.

Both the city and the tenants dispute SPOA's claims, however, and question the validity of the study.

"[The SPOA report] is highly biased and flawed to its foundations as to what it can say about the city," said Michael H. Turk, the co-chair of the Cambridge Tenants' Union. "[The lawsuit] is a grab bag of claims already litigated and wholly and thoroughly illegitimate."

According to Turk, SPOA falsely claims that rents are not high enough to keep up with inflation because their study is based on the 1967 inflation rate. Rents are actually skyrocketing compared to inflation, Turk said.

Turk also said most tenants are actually below the state median income and that in addition to providing affordable housing, rent control has "stabilized the neighborhoods" and prevented complete gentrification.

The general counsel to the city's rent control board did not return phone calls and was unavailable for comment.

Despite the opposition by both the city and the tenants, Jillson and supporters say they feel confident that the case will eventually be heard by a jury and that rent control will be abolished.

Jillson did acknowledge, however, that SPOA faces a "philosophical obstacle," the problem of "getting over the hurdle that rent control is a good idea." "I think Cambridge rent control is never good for any city," said Lenore M. Schloming '59, SPOA member and publisher of Eagle's Eye, an anti-rent control newspaper. "Our greatest obstacle is bucking the status quo, and that's always hard."