This year's plan far exceeds the scale of the most recent major attempt at rent control reform, Proposition 1-2-3. The controversial effort, which would have allowed some tenants in rent-controlled housing to eventually purchase their apartments, was defeated in the 1989 city elections.

While many changes have occurred since 1970, some say that a regulation written by Sullivan in 1979 saved the system, which at the time was losing many units to outright sale. Sullivan says that his amendment, which restricted the conversion of apartments to condominiums, is "working extremely well to this day."

The Tenants

Michael H. Turk, co-chair of the Cambridge Tenants Union (CTU), labelled Ford's proposal "a mixed bag for tenants and for Cambridge," arguing that certain aspects of the report, such as the Affordable Housing Preservation Fund fee, are unfair, and that the proposal fails to give other issues the necessary emphasis.

"I'm somewhat disappointed," Turk said. "Our strongest opposition is against the tenant tax because it is regressive, unworkable and illegal--you can't just tax tenants because they are tenants. Also, the tax would eventually find its way down to the low-income tenants."

"Instead, the money for building improvements should come from other, more reasonable resources," he said. "For instance, the revolving loan fund is a great idea, but we should put aside at least two times the amount that was projected. And the idea to put pressure on the banks to reinvest is a good one, but we should expand that approach."

Turk said that yet another source of improvement funding should be the "slum lords," who divert much of their funds away from maintaining their buildings, allowing them to deteriorate. "It's all a matter of enforcement," Turk said.

Turk also disagrees with the proposal's survey method, in which the city would examine the condition of all Cambridge's units within two years--without first evaluating the number of units under the system.

"The weighting of priorities needs to be reversed, for the first and foremost task is to find out how many units are under rent control," Turk said. "There has been a dramatic loss of rent control housing by illegal removal of units that has not been accounted for by the city."

He said one study estimates that 1900 of about 14,000 rent controlled units were converted into condominiums between 1980 and 1986--in defiance of Sullivan's 1979 amendment.

"There is no reason that the city shouldn't be able to prevent this illegal activity with enforcement, and no reason that it shouldn't know exactly how many units are available."

Turk's third complaint centers on the "loose, weak" rent increase cap of 30 percent over two years, which he said would allow for a 120 point increase within six years due to compounding rates.

Robert Edbrooke, a member of CTU who said his rent has skyrocketed by $400 in the past five years, said the proposed cap will not soothe his anger.

"A 30 percent cap would still hoist my rent by $270 over the next two years," Edbrooke said. "That doesn't strike me as a good idea. I think a set dollar amount would be more reasonable."

And the Landlords