Protection of the poor has always been advanced as the primary justification for rent control; however, it is the middle-and upper-middle classes who are the primary beneficiaries of the system. Such middle-and upper-middle income people are given a subsidy unrelated to their needs and a "moral justification" for receiving it. After all, rent control in Cambridge, according to its enabling act, was a response to a housing emergency that was burdensome "especially for families of low and moderate income." The truth is that the system doesn't especially benefit low-and moderate-income people.

A 1980 study by Herbert Leonard of Harvard found that one third of people living in rent controlled housing in Cambridge were upper-income and professional people. While studying at MIT, Ann Jaroscewicz found that this proportion had increased to 55 percent by 1985.

In a recent study of rent control in Berkeley and Santa Monica by Richard Devine of the "Center for Community Change," a non-profit organization dedicated to the empowerment of the poor, the author concluded that "the overwhelming majority of benefits...accrued to middle-class households who were given the unique and ethically comfortable opportunity of maximizing their interest by voting to protect the poor from exploitation." He found that expenditures for discretionary goods such as stereo equipment and gourmet food to be unusually high in these communities. Such items were paid for with increased disposable income due to articially low rent.

For too long, some Cambridge politicians have heralded the "progressive" character of rent control. In fact, it is a reactionary system which allows the politicians to buy votes through putting more money in their constituent's pockets.

It's time for a change. Let's have a truly enlightened housing policy which targets people who need the help. I have drafted legislation which reforms our system of rent control. The main components of this are a means test and a regulated set aside of units by landlords for low-income people. Eviction controls would remain the same as they are now.

Under my proposal (see below), landlords could continue operating under the present system or could elect to subject their property to a new law. Added tax revenue from decontrolled units and fees paid by landlords under this section would be used to form a fund that would subsidize rents for tenants and mortgage interest for limited equity homeonwers.

A recent Boston Globe article referred to a former member of the Rent Control Board who earns over $100,000 and lives in a controlled apartment. Given that the average controlled rent is about $300 per month, including heat, this man is probably paying well under 10 percent of his income for rent. Low-income people are often paying 50 percent or more of their income for rent. How can any intelligent person call our present system of rent control "progressive?" How ridiculous!

My legislation is an equitable method of addressing the housing needs of low-and moderate-income people in Cambridge. It displaces no one. For too long, the debate over rent control has been dominated by ideologues and those who would do only what is politically expedient. My proposal is characterize by logic, common sense and economic reality and should be adopted by the Cambridge City Council.

The following is the applicable section of my revised "Rent Control Act":

SECTION 10: Dedicated Units and Vacancy Decontrol

...Any owner of one or more units in any one building may elect to subject his property to this section. An owner so desiring shall file a notice with the Board. The Board shall then inform all tenants of that owner living at the property of the landlord's intention to decontrol the property.

Each tenant will then be given a tenant profile form to fill out and to be returned to the Board within 14 days, and each profile shall contain sufficient information to allow the Board to determine whether the tenant's status is low income, moderate income, handicapped or elderly. The Board shall promulgate definitions of low-income, moderate-income, handicapped and elderly tenants ("qualified tenant(s)") in conjunction with the Cambridge Housing Authority and consistent with current guidelines promulgated by HUD.

Upon notification to the owner by the Board of the names and addresses of low-and moderate-income and elderly tenants, the owner shall thereafter prepare a list on which a portion of the units are designated for qualified tenants, designating which units are designated to be decontrolled and designating which units he proposes to dedicate as low-and moderate income and elderly housing for qualified tenants...Unless otherwise provided herein, units not designated as dedicated units shall be subject to vacancy decontrol subject to this act.

(i)The following factors shall be considered when determining which units shall be dedicated units.:

1. current location at the property of qualified existing tenants;