The first directors of the rent control board weakened the system from within--one of them declared that all rents would be set at the market rates--until tenant and student activists ousted them and tightened the system.

And within its first year, rent control, which has evolved into Cambridge's political litmus test, was repealed by a lame duck city council in a stormy public meeting. Days later, when the new council took office, the system was reenacted, and pro-rent control candidates managed to hold five of the council's nine seats throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1989, six of the councillors have been prorent control.

In 1989, rent control faced one of its toughest political challenges, when the city voted on Proposition 1-2-3, a referendum that would have allowed owners of rent-controlled units to sell the units to their tenants. Critics argued that the regulation would deplete the supply of affordable housing, and the proposition was defeated in a bitter election.

In its modern form, Cambridge's rent control laws applies to all units built before 1970, and restricts rents to those charged in 1967, plus inflation and some allowance for certain expenses. Landlords charge that there are interminable delays in getting rent increases and that many expenses, such as loan interest, may not be passed on to the tenant. All owner-occupied buildings that have three units or fewer are exempt.

Numerous legal challenges against rent control around the country have been mounted in the past, mostly by large developers and property owners. Some of the suits against specific provisions of specific systems have been successful, but many of the broader-based attacks have not.

In 1988, the Supreme Court voted, 6-2, to uphold San Jose's 1979 rent control law. At that time, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that states must be able to regulate "the economic relationship of landlords and tenants...We see no need to reconsider the constitutionality of rent control per se."

And a Cambridge case involving a Fresh Pond developer was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the early 1980s, in effect upholding a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in favor of the Cambridge Rent Control Board.

Because of this history, many rent-control activists say that much of the suit is frivolous.

"This is a grab bag of various items, some of which have already been litigated extensively in the state courts," says Mike Turk, co-chair of the Cambridge Tenants Union, an organization that has often found itself at odds with SPOA.

Nevertheless, Natale and SPOA remain optimistic about their chances in court.

Cambridge's rent control system, Natale says, has never been argued on its merits in the Supreme Court. And other rent control systems may be constitutional, but Cambridge's restrictive system is not, he asserts.

"Our system in Cambridge is the harshest, most blatant, anti-owner rent control system there is. We believe it will be the easiest to bring down."

And, he argues, there are enough conservative new faces on the Supreme Court today to overturn past decisions.

"I just can't wait to get to the Supreme Court," he says.

A Different Sort of Suit