Voter Turnout Lowest in Recent Memory

The Harvard University Police Department headquarters at 29 Garden St. is empty of civilians on most fall afternoons. Election Day--when police headquarters also serves as a polling station--is supposed to be different.

Yesterday it wasn't.

Voters came in ebbs and flows, but overall, the atmosphere was more suited for a library than election day.

Though this was one of many polling places in Cambridge, the numbers tell the same story elsewhere.

At first count last night, 18,549 had voted in the City Council elections. This was one of the lowest numbers in recent years.

In 1993, another year with few divisive issues, over 23,000 people voted.

While voter turn-out usually dips in an off-election year like these, longtime residents worry that Cambridge has lost its trademark activism.

The candidates are still proliferating, at least--24 City Council candidates were listed on the ballot yesterday, as opposed to 19 two years ago.

But candidates' messages are sounding much the same as in past years: increase affordable housing, strengthen education, limit zoning.

One reason is that the bread and butter issue of Cambridge politics--rent control--is off the ballot, and its return isn't imminent.

Candidates are reluctant to say that--advocating the return of rent control is a popular stance--but the likelihood of rent control making a comeback as a galvanizing issue is faint. And while there was an effort to get a rent-control initiative on the ballot, even rent control advocates admit its only purpose was to get people to the polls.

"The strategy was to put the question on the ballot not because it would win," said Glenn S. Koocher '71, a local political analyst, on Sunday.

"It would have mobilized voters, and the turnout would have been better for tenants," he said.

So Cambridge is left to redefine itself as a city without a major divisive issue.

Those voters who came to the polls said it was a sense of democratic responsibility rather than any particular issue that motivated them.

"It's the duty of every citizen to participate in the democratic process whether or not there are any important issues on the ballot," said a Lowell House resident and lifelong Cantabrigian who did not give his name.

Still, rent control continues to get people agitated--and it's not about to disappear from Cambridge's radar screen, as the city's several tenants-rights groups show.

And though it's not on the ballot, some voters still passionately care about the issue.

"I think it's terrible. I think a lot of really creative people have been forced out of the city. I think it's a tragedy for Cambridge," said a voter who declined to give his name.

But most voters didn't express the same gravity about the issue.

Margaret McCarthy, 54, a stay-at-home mother, said she does not support rent control and doesn't mind that it is not on the ballot because "a landlord shouldn't subsidize a tenant."

"Rent control is a bad thing because it distorts the market," said the Lowell House resident. "It's clearly not worthwhile. The prices would not be driven that high without rent control."

All these voters had to be pushed to discuss rent control, though. They said they were voting because they felt it was a civic duty, and not necessarily because they were motivated by a particular issue.

And despite the array of candidates, the winners were almost all incumbents.

Nevertheless, challengers spiced up the ballot. Charles O. Christenson, whose unofficial residence is the Cantab Lounge, and James M. Williamson, who counts bringing back the Tasty among his central platforms, at least provided alternative choices.

And the long-running Robert Winters, a Harvard math preceptor, and David Trumbull, the bow-tied token Republican, attempted once again to break into the ranks--and failed.

Ultimately, even the voters who did go to the polls--those who would seem the least apathetic citizens--seemed little concerned about who actually got elected.

Frank, a 51-year-old man who lives on Mass. Ave. and declined to give his last name, says he believes while there are some differences between the candidates, they are all going to do similar jobs.

"They're basically all steering in the right direction; they're just in different boats," he said.

Said the Lowell House voter, "As a resident of Cambridge, I feel that there isn't anything directly wrong with the city, so I voted for the incumbents."