Rent Control Foes Win Key Victory

In what could prove an important victory for opponents of rent control, a Massachusetts judge recently ruled that a petition to let a statewide referendum decide the issue has enough signatures to be valid.

But a state vote on the question which has divided Cambridge politicians for decades is by no means assured: Battles over the legality of the petition continue in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and the state legislature.

On Friday, April 22, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Martha Sossman ruled that the petition, submitted to the Secretary of State late last year by the anti-rent control Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition, had the required 70,286 valid signatures.

The Secretary of State and initially determined that the petition was approximately 300 signatures short of the required number, and members of the Homeowners Coalition filed suit disputing this claim.

In response, members of the prorent control Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections filed suit contending that the petition was in fact short of the required number of signatures.

The trial featured testimoney from registrars responsible for certifying petition signatures and handwriting experts.

At one point, the testimony became too drawn-out for the judge, so she asked the parties to negotiate outside of court to clarify where their disagreements were. These negotiations lasted three weeks of the sevenweek period of the trial.

Bill Cavellini, a Cambridge taxi driver and member of the Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections, said his group plans to appeal. He said the judge counted more than 400 signatures in which the signer put the wrong address and hundreds of others that were challenged after the deadline for discovery in the case.

Cavellini noted that Sossman ruled that hundreds of signatures had been obtained "fraudulently and conspiratorially."

He said his group requested that the attorney general investigate further for possible charges, and that an investigation is being conducted, "as far as I know."

Supreme Court Battle

At the same time as the battle over the number of valid signatures, a dif- ferent fight over the petition is occurring inthe Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Pro-rent control advocates and the City ofCambridge have filed suit against the attorneygeneral alleging that he should not have certifiedthe petition as valid under the initiativepetition process.

The Court will hear arguments on the case thisThursday, and, according to Homeowners Coalitionchair Denise A. Jillson, will rule on it by May12.

The suit alleges that the petition to get rentcontrol on the state ballot should not have beencertified because it violates the "home rule"portion of the state constitution.

It alleges that the purpose of the petition wasto end rent control in Cambridge, Boston andBrookline, the only three municipalities in thestate that allow the practice. The issue should bedecided within these communities, not on astatewide basis, the suit says.

The suit against the attorney general alsoalleges that a summary of the petition that hisoffice prepared for inclusion on the state ballotwas misleading, because, the suit claims, it ledvoters to believe that the petition was actuallypro-rent control.

Cavellini said that the summary, and thepetition on which it was based, were "deliberatelymisleading" so as to be "a distortion of thedemocratic process."

State Legislature

In addition to the two court fights, the rentcontrol battle is also being waged in the statelegislature.

On Tuesday morning, the Local AffairsCommittee, a joint committee of the statelegislature, will hold a public hearing on therent control initiative petition, after which itwill provide a recommendation on the issue of astate constitutional convention.

State Rep. Barbara Gray (D-Framingham),co-chair of the Local Affairs Committee, said theexpects the committee to issue an unfavorablerecommendation.

"I think this matter is not an appropriatematter for initiative petition," Gray said. "It isa matter of home rule."

The constitutional convention, which includesmembers of the Senate and House, will conveneWednesday.

If the petition, or some compromise version ofit, passes at the convention, it will be certifiedfor inclusion on the state ballot in November.

If the petition is not endorsed by theconstitutional convention, however, the HomeownersCoalition will be required to collect anadditional 12,000 signatures by late June in orderto get the issue on the state ballot.

Jillson said she does not believe that theconvention will endorse it, and lamented thecomplicated procedure for getting referenda on theballot.

"The legislature believes the initiativepetition process undermines their authority," shesaid. "The process is so convoluted andcomplicated to discourage people."

Even if the referendum goes to the voters andthey approve it, however, Cambridge, Boston orBrookline could still file a home rule petitionchallenging the constitutionality of thereferendum

Pro-rent control advocates and the City ofCambridge have filed suit against the attorneygeneral alleging that he should not have certifiedthe petition as valid under the initiativepetition process.

The Court will hear arguments on the case thisThursday, and, according to Homeowners Coalitionchair Denise A. Jillson, will rule on it by May12.

The suit alleges that the petition to get rentcontrol on the state ballot should not have beencertified because it violates the "home rule"portion of the state constitution.

It alleges that the purpose of the petition wasto end rent control in Cambridge, Boston andBrookline, the only three municipalities in thestate that allow the practice. The issue should bedecided within these communities, not on astatewide basis, the suit says.

The suit against the attorney general alsoalleges that a summary of the petition that hisoffice prepared for inclusion on the state ballotwas misleading, because, the suit claims, it ledvoters to believe that the petition was actuallypro-rent control.

Cavellini said that the summary, and thepetition on which it was based, were "deliberatelymisleading" so as to be "a distortion of thedemocratic process."

State Legislature

In addition to the two court fights, the rentcontrol battle is also being waged in the statelegislature.

On Tuesday morning, the Local AffairsCommittee, a joint committee of the statelegislature, will hold a public hearing on therent control initiative petition, after which itwill provide a recommendation on the issue of astate constitutional convention.

State Rep. Barbara Gray (D-Framingham),co-chair of the Local Affairs Committee, said theexpects the committee to issue an unfavorablerecommendation.

"I think this matter is not an appropriatematter for initiative petition," Gray said. "It isa matter of home rule."

The constitutional convention, which includesmembers of the Senate and House, will conveneWednesday.

If the petition, or some compromise version ofit, passes at the convention, it will be certifiedfor inclusion on the state ballot in November.

If the petition is not endorsed by theconstitutional convention, however, the HomeownersCoalition will be required to collect anadditional 12,000 signatures by late June in orderto get the issue on the state ballot.

Jillson said she does not believe that theconvention will endorse it, and lamented thecomplicated procedure for getting referenda on theballot.

"The legislature believes the initiativepetition process undermines their authority," shesaid. "The process is so convoluted andcomplicated to discourage people."

Even if the referendum goes to the voters andthey approve it, however, Cambridge, Boston orBrookline could still file a home rule petitionchallenging the constitutionality of thereferendum