City Council Refuses To Debate Owners' Rent Control Report

The Cambridge City Council resumed two long-standing battles last night, fielding issues of rent control and economic development after a week dominated by fierce reaction to the new domestic partners ordinance.

The council voted 5-4 to send a private report criticizing rent control laws to the city solicitor instead of to a public hearing.

Claiming that the Council is withholding public information, Councillor William H. Walsh proposed that the council hold a hearing on the report issued by the Small Property Owners Association (SPOA).

The report, written by Rolf Goetze, a private data analyst hired by SPOA, says that rent control contributes to the low number of vacant units in the city, places an unfair burden on landlords and ultimately hurts the city's economy.

SPOA is currently suing Cambridge for what it says are unfair rent control policies. The group wants all rent control laws revoked, and has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court.

At question was the city's responsibility to consider the report, and whether it should be heard in a public hearing.

Walsh said the city should hear all information regarding rent control. Others, most notably those councillors endorsed by the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA), indicated that it may have been more of a political move for Walsh, who has traditionally opposed rent control.

The city's lawyers have advised the council not to hold the hearing, said Reeves, who opposed the hearing. Anything said in the hearings could be used against the city in court, he said.

If SPOA wants the Goetze report to be heard, Reeves told Walsh, "they could go on your TV show." Walsh hosts a program on local access cable TV.

Councillor Jonathan Myers said that his rent control subcommittee has already agreed to look at the report and is making sufficient progress on the rent control litigation.

Myers also said that SPOA has refused to attend the committee's meetings.

Loan Guarantees

A proposal to offer loan guarantees to Cambridge biotechnology businesses also encountered lengthy ideological debate.

The council debated a proposal which would have required biotech firms to hire a set number of Cambridge residents to be eligible for loan guarantees from the city.

Councillor Alice K. Wolf proposed that 10 percent of each individual firm's work force must live in Cambridge in order to be eligible for the loans.

The loans will be subsidized by a $5 million Community Development Block Grant from the federal government.

The council defeated the proposal, opting to conduct further research on the issue and come up with a percentage that would not unduly burden the city's businesses.

Walsh criticized the proposal, saying it would hurt already embattled biotech companies. The Genetics Institute recently decided to leave, and more may follow, he said.

Councillor Edward N. Cyr also criticized the proposal, saying that biotech labs move too often for the city to invest in the companies profitably.

Addressing the question on whether Cambridge should take a more active role in its businesses, Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55 said that Cambridge must have a more proactive government, citing the successes of Germany and Japan.

Currently, Cambridge citizens make up 7.7 percent of the city's biotech work force, said Assistant City Manager Michael Rosenberg.

Myers said Wolf's program did not go far enough, and proposed raising the 10 percent floor to 15 percent.

"Other programs are trickle-down, and we've seen how that works before," Myers said.

Myers also said that a higher percentage would insure that more jobs are created for Cambridge workers. "We know we'll get a clear return," he said.

The general proposal was approved 6-2, without a specific percentage minimum of Cambridge employment.

Domestic Partners

Councillor Walsh moved that the Council reconsider last week's vote which guaranteed many spousal rights to unmarried domestic partners. An opponent of last week's vote, Walsh said that the council should work to extend the definition of family beyond last week's proposal.