Thirteen years after Cambridge implemented one of the toughest rent control policies in the state, tenants are dissatisfied. They say the regulations--which monitor the costs to both tenants and landlords in low- to moderate-income housing--have been subverted in two ways: landlords are getting around the restrictions by making unnecessary repairs and then demanding increases to cover them: and relatively affluent people are taking the controlled housing from the low-income tenants who need it more.

To register these complaints, the Cambridge Rent Control Coalition (CRCC) is pushing a non-binding, six-point referendum on Tuesday's ballot which would advocate an even more restrictive stance, including an increase in public and private funds for rehabilitation of low cost housing, stricter vacancy controls, capping rent increase and inclusionary zoning laws. The campaign has divided along the traditional conservative/liberal split. But both sides agree that, with 70 percent of the city considered tenants, the referendum will easily pass. Whether it will mean anything hangs on the city council elections on the same day. If the current even split between the conservative Independents and the progressive Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) continues, it will be tough to actually enact the provisions. The Cambridge City Council actually voted down the proposal in August, but CRCC organizers gathered enough signatures on their petition to insure inclusion of the measure on the ballot.

The program calls for:

*Increasing public funding of low-cost rehabilitation of affordable housing under rent control and stopping bank discrimination against rent-controlled properties.

Michael Turk, co-author of the referendum and leader of the Harvard Tenants Union, suggests that some of the city's resources should be shifted into a public loan fund for repair and maintenance of older buildings. "Money is being used to fix up housing for middle-to upper-level income people, and we just want to make sure we get our fair share," Turk says.

The referendum also proposes that the city strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a 1977 measure encouraging banks to put funds back into the community by financing loans, by boycotting banks that do not comply with CRA. "The CRA has had a positive effect by encouraging banks to reinvest," says Michael Rosenberg, housing director for the city's Community Development Department. But he explains that some buildings just do not meet bank criteria for loans. "The CRA doesn't change these criteria, and the city can't force the banks to do anything."

Douglas Thayer, the head of the South view Real Estate Management firm, is skeptical that this will have an effect. "Any time anyone mentions banks, the discussion centers on sanctions instead of incentives and I don't think sanctions encourage banks to do anything," he says South-view manages 104 rent-controlled units in the city.

Thayer suggests that tenants, banks and the city form a partnership to review petitions for funding from both tenants and landlords. Once an application had been discussed by all sides, it would be forwarded to the Rent Control Board for final action. He adds that the city is already developing such a program.

Turk, however, says that in preliminary meetings to discuss such a group, city officials ignored tenant concerns.

*Keeping housing in use by requesting a removal permit for refusal to rent units left vacant for more than 90 days.

"Vacant housing units are symptoms of serious problems: blight, impending demolition, illegal condo(minim) conversion, speculation...," says the explanatory sheet on the referendum prepared by the CRCC. To prevent this, the group wants to make it illegal to keep housing vacant for more than 90 days.

Currently, Cambridge has no clear-cut guidelines for dealing with vacant property. Rosenberg questions the enforceability of vacancy-control legislation, but Turk says a similar program recently initiated in Brookline has worked well.

*Strengthen rent controls by "capping" rent increases.

One of the CRCC's major complaints is that landlords are making expensive improvements in their buildings, and then claiming rent hikes to cover their expenditures--sometimes raising the rent beyond the reach of current tenants. Capping, the group says, would encourage landlords to be cost-conscious in making repairs.

Landlords, however, say that any measures preventing maintenance of their buildings are not feasible. "Sacrificing maintenance of housing stock for affordability is ignoring the long-term reality," Thayer says.