Zeckhauser said the special adjustment rent increase has occurred in a few of the Harvard owned buildings. She added it is a natural policy for landlords to note large capital improvements. Wade is reported to have said at this meeting that such an action would not have been taken had tenants not brought the violations to Harvard/Hunneman's attention.

The first official city of Cambridge Health Inspection was scheduled for February 15. Inspector Joseph Cremens confirmed most of the tenants' complaints, citing more than 125 health code violations in five inspections. By the end of his visit, he had only seen approximately half of the buildings' apartments.

On Cremens's second inspection on March 1, he recorded on his notation sheet that "some progress" was made. But the tenants still felt that the common areas and other units were in need of repair. In protest, on March 1, some tenants chose to withhold their rent in an escrow account until the building met health guidelines.

On the third reinspection on March 15, Cremens declared "very little progress." It was not until April 15 that he acknowledged a number of the corrections in the common room in 24 Prescott St. He returned again on April 30 and found more improvements.

Tenants continued to refuse to pay their rent because the back wall had not been repaired, and numerous apartments still had cracks and holes in the walls and ceilings.

Harvard, on May 4, brought eviction procedures against the tenants who were withholding their rents. The tenants said they saw it as a scare tactic to alienate others in the building, who were marginally participating in the protest. "It's scary to have a constable at your door," Ramseur said.

The notice for them "to quit" their apartment came ten days before the examiner's hearing to determine whether Harvard was justified in asking for a rent increase. Harvard, as of April 17, had amended their petition, requesting only a 20 per-cent to 40 per-cent increase, Zeckhauser said. Originally Hunneman/Harvard's petition had stated that they were losing money on the buildings. Now it showed they were making a profit.

The amount of the rent increase set at the hearing is largely dependent on the condition of the buildings. Harvard started a flurry of repairs the week before the examiner's hearing, Leo Manis, a tenant, said. Nipson once returned from work at 6 a.m., only to have unannounced workmen awake him at seven. Another time, Nipson returned home to find all his kitchen utensils moved by painters from the kitchen and left on the living room floor. "Hunneman just didn't have its heart in the repairs," he said.

The hearing took place on May 14. The examiner's recommendation is still unreleased. The hearing was extraordinarily long, dragging on for eight hours.

Harvard Real Estate and the group of tenants continued to negotiate other factors besides the amount of the rent after the hearing. Harvard could have followed up on the eviction procedure. At the same time, the tenants could have tried to sue Harvard for retaliatory eviction, claiming Harvard was evicting them for their complaints in regard to the health code.

The tenants also wanted reabatements--money for the time they had live in housing below the Health Code, a violation of the tenants' leases.

In early June, Wade negotiated furiously with the tenants. They reached a tentative agreement on May 5, which all parties signed. Both sides had their lawyers write up what they thought they had agreed to. When the two documents were presented the next day, there were serious differences. Zeckhauser said variations stemmed from semantics.

Talks were opened up again in mid-June. A settlement was finally reached on June 18. Both sides now agreed to drop all discussion about the rent increase, accepting whatever the examiner decided, and gradually implementing the increase in steps. Harvard agreed not to raise the rent until March 26, 1981, unless a major capital expense is required. Harvard dropped their eviction threat and paid tenants varying rebatements. All tenants dropped their right to protest violations which had occured in the past.

The group of tenants said they do have some worries over the settlement. All of them want a resident superintendent. Harvard unofficially agreed to bring back a resident superintendent. At the moment, though, there are no one-room apartments available, Zeckhauser said. "We have 100 per-cent occupancy," she added.

The tenants were also worried about the lack of a "Grandfather Clause" in the settlement, protecting people on a fixed income from rent increases above their means. This clause would especially aid the number of elderly who live in the buildings. If the tenants had won this point, a terrible precedent would have been set for Cambridge landlords, Ramseur said.