Rent Control Referendum Faces ROAD BLOCKS

Citizens grappling over rent control face a key decision as soon as this week, when a Supreme Judicial Court ruling will determine whether voters will get the chance to ban the price ceilings from Massachusetts.

The ruling will determine whether a statewide vote on rent control would violate the state constitution's guarantee of "home rule," which is essentially the right of individual communities to make decisions for themselves.

If the court rules that a vote is constitutional, the decision would be a big victory for rent control opponents, who say that a referendum would most likely go in their favor.

But if the court deems the referendum illegal, rent control supporters would be sitting pretty--there would be few avenues remaining for opponents of the price ceilings.

In the meantime, the petitions that would send the rent control question to the voters may be called into question as well.

Anti-rent control activists, represented by the Homeowners Coalition, needed 11,715 signatures to send the issue to referendum.

But the pro-rent control Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection is presently in the process of investigating the validity of the signatures.

If the pro-rent control Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection successfully challenges the validity of the signatures, any referendum would be delayed at least a year, as the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition would be forced to re-collect signatures.

Yet a third hurdle for the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition could come in court this fall.

Rent control advocates have appealed a judge's ruling that a preliminary petition requiring more than 70,000 signatures is valid.

If the rent control supporters successfully erect any of these roadblocks, a vote on rent control would be delayed a year, two years or forever.

The First Petition

In August, anti-rent control activists filed language with the attorney general's office for a petition to have a referendum that would dramatically alter the way rent control is applied throughout the state.

The anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition needed 70,286 valid signatures--three and a half percent of the ballots cast in the most recent gubernatorial election--with no more than 25 percent coming from any single county, in order to achieve a relatively equitable distribution.

The anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition obtained more than 93,000 signatures in the fall.

The Secretary of State initially determined that the petition was about 70 signatures short of the required number, and members of the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition, disputing the claim, sued.

In response, the pro-rent control Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection also filed suit, challenging the validity of the signatures and charging that the petition was, in fact, short of the required number of signatures.

The groups spent much of the year battling in court, and on April 22, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Martha Sossman ruled that the petition did, in fact, have the minimum number of valid signatures.

But the pro-rent control Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection has appealed the ruling.

Bill Cavellini, a Cambridge taxi driver and a member of the pro-rent control interest group, says 1,300 signatures were written by the same several individuals, although only 300 of those were confirmed in the court.

Cavellini says he expects the appeal to be heard in September or October. And he notes that if the signatures are ruled invalid in an appeal trial, the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition would have to restart the process of collecting signatures for the petition.

And that would mean no rent control referendum on Election Day, 1994.

The Second Petition

The State Legislature has a right to refuse the first set of petitions and require another set to demonstrate additional popular support. It did so for the rent control case.

And throughout the wrangling over the first petition, the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition moved ahead with the process and onto the second one. The second petition required 11,715--a number equivalent to one-half of one percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election--additional signatures to put the rent control question to the voters.

Denise A. Jillson, president of the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition, says her group has gathered about 21,000 signatures.

"It was overkill, so we would not be challenged," she says.

But the pro-rent control Tenant Union refusing to die easily, has questioned this petition's validity anyway.

Cavellini says the pro-rent control Tenant Union is "in the process of examining" the signatures for fraud, duplications and illegal repeats from the first petition.

Cavellini declined to give an early estimate of how many signatures he believes are invalid, saying the prorent control Tenant Union is still "deep in the midst of the process."

He said the examination would likely conclude in a few days.

And if the pro-rent control Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection can successfully persuade a court that enough signatures are invalid, the Homeowners Coalition would have to restart the process of collecting signatures for the petition.

Once again, Election Day, 1994, could come and go without a rent control referendum.

Home Rule

But all the grappling over signatures would be moot if yet another court decision supports the rent control activists.

Pro-rent control advocates, as well as the City of Cambridge, have sued the attorney general, charging that he should not have certified the petition as valid under the initiative petition process.

The suit alleged that the purpose of the petition was to end rent control in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge--the only three municipalities in the state which allow the practice.

Sending rent control to a referendum, the suit claimed, would infringe on the autonomy of each of the cities by violating the home rule portion of the state constitution.

The Supreme Judicial Court held a hearing on the constitutionality of the petition on May 4, and, according to Jillson, it focused almost entirely on whether it violated the home rule clause.

Jillson says the ruling could come as early as this week.

Indeed, the Secretary of State needs a decision by July 13 in order to include explanations of the question in its voters' guide, which is distributed to all voters in the state.

If the court rules in favor of the anti-rent control Homeowners Coalition, the rent control foes have just two more obstacles to clear before the question goes to the voters.

But if the court upholds the suit, rent control foes will never be able to bring the issue to the voters--and will have yet another avenue cut off in their quest to end the price ceilings.

The Referendum

If the referendum goes through, a vote against rent control would prohibit the practice in the state except when voluntarily adopted.

In other words, all previous rent control laws would be preempted. Cities could still enact the ceilings under the principle of home rule--but only through the state legislature.

The difference would be noticeable, Jillson says.

Before, there were no guidelines to rent control, Jillson says.

But if rent control is abolished by the voters, Jillson says, "there will be strict guidelines, putting responsibility on the city or town."

For example, Jillson says, if a city decides to implement rent control, it would have to compensate homeowners for the difference between the ceiling and the market price.

And Jillson says she has conducted some "preliminary polling" which "looks good" for opponents of rent control.

Cavellini says he hasn't heard of any polls, and says the group with the most money and the best field organization would win the vote in November.

If, that is, there actually is a vote in November.