An article on page three of yesterday's Crimson incorrectly described realtor Fred Meyer's initiative petition, Proposition 1-2-3.
The petition, which supporters want to place on the 1989 municipal ballot, would not use a "means test" to let only low-income tenants live in rent-controlled housing. Such a law would be illegal.
Instead, Proposition 1-2-3 would:
1. allow tenants of two years or more to buy their units, whether they are under rent control or not.
2. exempt single-family homes from rent control if they have been owner-occupied for two years or more. The rule would apply to owners who move out and rent their former homes to tenants.
3. create a fund for poor tenants using two-thirds of the increase in city revenue caused when tenants buy their units, thus converting them into condominiums. This part of the proposition would impose a "means test" only to decide who should receive money from the fund.
Read more in News
Racial Violence Hits South Boston HighRecommended Articles
-
University, Cambridge Agree on Housing PlanAfter more than a year of consultation, including a nine-month deadlock, the University and the city of Cambridge have agreed
-
Rent Control in Cambridge: Is the Solution in Sight?Last month, the City Council's Rent Control Subcommittee unveiled the most comprehensive reform proposal in the system's 20-year history. Will
-
RENT CONTROL: A Reformer's PerspectiveProtection of the poor has always been advanced as the primary justification for rent control; however, it is the middle-and
-
RENT CONTROL: Reform, But Don't AbolishPresident, Cambridge Civic Association The real needed reform of rent control in Cambridge is being obscured by the misleading questions
-
Cambridge's Perennial Issue Rears Its HeadSince its inception in 1970, rent control has held center stage in Cambridge politics. Other issues come and go, but
-
Cambridge's Perennial Issue Rears Its HeadSince its inception in 1970, rent control has held center stage in Cambridge politics. Other issues come and go, but
