On the local level, extremely strong pressures towards gentrification have beset the entire Boston area, including communities and neighborhoods once thought of as “undesirable.” The result of these trends operating over years has been huge profits, mass displacement, and despair. This result affects our ability to organize.

Nationally, even world-wide, there is an ideological offensive for neo-liberalism: Free the market from its shackles and all will be well. This is a domestic issue everywhere in the US, and an international issue in the form of WTO/IMF economic restructuring. There is a relentless assault on all forms of market regulation, on all things public. This assault is both on policies and in the realm of ideas. It affects everyone, including our members and constituents.

These huge profits have produced very well heeled real estate forces, with especially large influence in local politics; and they are supported by the ideologically-led libertarian Small Property Owners Association (SPOA) with a mass base.

If we do not see this context, we will fall into the trap of seeing individual proposals for reform, like rent regulation, as the central question. Rent control is not the central issue. The issue is the failure of the market to provide and maintain affordable housing for the masses of people.

The approach of the Eviction Free Zone (EFZ) since the loss of rent control:

Understanding the failure of the market has led the EFZ to insist upon non-market solutions, solutions that will protect the homes of low and moderate income people from the ravages of the market. We have demanded solutions that allow people to work to revitalize their communities without their very success driving them out of their homes and communities, and without their labor and tax money being privatized into real estate profits. Some examples include:

Practical initiatives to provide immediate defense to people faced with displacement. Tenant Organizing, building by building, case by case. This created the organized base that we tried to link to public policy demands below.

Demand for public expenditure to get buildings and housing outside of the for-profit market. The $10 million Plan, support for non-profit purchases, support for the Community Preservation Act (CPA), while we opposed City Sec. 8 proposals made by the real estate industry, which would just subsidize their profits.

Demand for market regulation. Expiring use rent regulation—which passed the Cambridge City Council and probably would have passed in the legislature if not for Finneran. The condo conversion law – which needed to pass only in the Council (but failed by one vote). And the effort to get back some form of basic rent and eviction protection.

Questions that arise from this approach.

What specific initiative do we emphasize at any given time? All these initiatives go forward together, but we work out in a practical way which one receives central attention at any given time. What can pass? What really matters for our people? What will change the nature of the debate?

How do we keep organizing central? People facing displacement must be the center of any demand for policy changes, especially anti-market policy changes. To do that, we must be organized. To be organized, we must have a response which confronts the immediate threat of displacement. We can’t just say, fight for this good cause which may pass two years from now – don’t worry that you’ll be evicted meanwhile.

How do we evaluate friends, allies, enemies? We can’t analyze the political stand of a city councilor or a community leader or an organization based solely on their position on rent regulation. It can be VERY important, but not sole. To the degree we do evaluate them on that issue, they must have input into what is being proposed.

The 1999 CCURE petition

In 1999, while the EFZ was heavily involved in organizing tenants, forcing the City of Cambridge to declare a Housing Emergency, a group of individuals was writing a new rent control ordinance for the purpose of mounting a referendum petition drive (the 1999 CCURE referendum).

The EFZ was not invited to participate, and didn’t hear about it, until it was written. Our base was involved in other campaigns, other policy initiatives. To argue that we should shift would have required engaging our base in a debate before the decision was made to go for a referendum.

We couldn’t do that. However, the EFZ never publicly opposed the petition drive, and many of our members from the 2000 Homes Campaign participated in CCURE’s signature gathering.

Recent referendum—Committee for Cambridge Rent Control (CCRC) 2003

All this brings us to the most recent campaign. In evaluating that campaign we should note two realities.

The drive for gentrification has led to a weakening of the active base for rent regulation. The tenant working class in Cambridge has been decimated. That was, after all the intention of Question 9 back in 1994 – force out low and moderate income people, transform the City, and make big bucks in the process. Much of what remains of the tenant working class only exists because it is protected by past victories, including many victories of the EFZ. Any analysis of why we didn’t mobilize better has to take this into account. How do we mobilize existing tenants around this issue? What is their stake? What form of rent regulation is passable?

We have underestimated the key political task of speaking to the needs of small owners. This must mean more than exempting them from the law. It must mean offering tangible improvements. We need to strengthen our relationship with small property owners and attempt to counter the myths about rent regulation propagated by the SPOA leadership.

Despite the above statements about the recent rent control referendum, the petition drive had some substantial successes. Many groups and individual activists worked together in providing support and input. Over 7,000 signatures were gathered—and the well-funded legal challenge to the authenticity of those certified was more than successfully counterchallenged.

And no one can deny the importance of the way the referendum drive succeeded in uniting the movement and keeping the issue of the housing crisis and rent control on the front burner during the Cambridge City Council election.

Evaluation of the campaign – external obstacles

In a post election campaign evaluation meeting, held in November 2003, activists from the Committee for Cambridge Rent Control (CCRC) were able to discuss what obstacles we faced, both externally and internally, and to brainstorm some ideas for future rent regulation attempts. We should see these proposals as part of the larger context described above.

Beginning with the objective conditions, areas were identified that caused the most difficulty in getting out the message. Battling people’s perception about the sacredness of the market and property rights was high on the list. 
In addition to the $100,000 that SPOA spent to oppose us, the real estate opposition spent an additional $18,000 in an attempt, though ineffective in challenging the election commission's certification of our signatures, proved to be an effective tactic for taking up much of our time after we had rushed to get the signatures in—and helped stall our organizing for getting out the vote.

While many of us were tied up for weeks going over every signature in order to prepare for the legal challenge, SPOA was spending its big bucks in round after round of downright fraudulent propaganda about the rent control ordinance. 
Media was against us with Vote No editorials in the Chronicle and headlines that read "mathematically impossible" to get enough votes. The referendum was painted as a dubious, unnecessary and harmful attempt to address the housing emergency in one of the most expensive cities in the most expensive state to rent or own in, and regulation of the housing market was viewed as an infringement on property rights and the American way. Though the referendum was designed to by-pass the City Council and take it directly to the people, it didn’t help to have only one city councilor speak out in favor of it. (Councilor Denise Simmons supported and campaigned around the rent control referendum effort).

Evaluation of the campaign—internal

The signature-gathering phase of the campaign did not succeed in building a solid base of supporters for the rent control ordinance. Some felt that because so much of the signature gathering was done at such a frantic pace—just trying to meet the deadline—that we were not adequately spending time interacting with and bringing in new folks.

Getting the signatures, while at the same time registering new Cambridge residents to vote, often felt to some like a rushed, almost frantic activity. While many of the people who needed no persuading and were eager to come on board, had moved because they no longer could afford to live here. 
After we handed in the signatures we didn't have time to adequately develop a strategy for the second phase—getting out the vote—in part because the challenge to our signatures took up so much time and energy and because during this crunch time we were not able to find agreement on the way to organize the getting out the vote stage. It was felt that this strategy should have been decided earlier but that because of the necessity to get certified first, many of our meetings focused on signature gathering trainings and education. 
When drafting the ordinance itself, on hindsight, we should have given more thought to the condominium issue part.  And once it was a completed part of the petition itself, we should have made more of an effort to do outreach to condo owners. Some felt we would have done better to start off with just cause eviction protection ordinance to begin with. 
Where do we go from here

 This internal evaluation continued as several options for going forward were identified by the group:

Coalition building should be put in place before ordinance drafted so that we have support throughout the city that will publicize, and spread the word to their constituents.

People should build their organizations, and through organizing bring in more people involved in the struggle to keep their homes who can bring input and direction to a new proposal for tenant protections, in whatever form, that will stand a better chance of winning next time.

One of the things we need to work on is strengthening our relationship with small property owners. We should attempt to isolate the SPOA leadership from small owners by continuing to publicize how SPOA opposes any form of regulation, preferring to protect the profits of huge real estate interests, while blatantly using the "small property owners" line as a deceptive strategy.

We should organize to build consciousness for the need to constantly push for City Home Rule regulatory measures, in Cambridge, in Boston-as well as other cities where regulatory measures are being presented.

Final thoughts – Market regulation and local control

We are battling a widespread ideological perception that market regulation is taboo (practically, in that “it can’t win”, and substantively, in that “it doesn’t work”). This perception exists despite the overwhelming and obvious failure of the for-profit market itself.

Everything we do must be geared to engaging and winning the political battle around this idea. Part of that involves what has been mentioned – practical organizing of tenants, breaking off small owners from SPOA’s hold. Part of this involves shifting the debate from rent regulation to the market.

We should realize that any City, which contributes a home rule petition involving local regulation of the housing market, is contributing in a positive way to the state battle over this issue. Cambridge may need to play the role of putting up something more modest that can join the effort.