It began as an earnest attempt to get low income housing built in Cambridge Referendums were held, working committees formed and proposals drafted all with the goal of providing affordable housing for those punched in the city's tight housing market. But when legislation requiring real estate developers to provide the necessary units was put before the city council two months ago it went off like a political bombshell Tenant groups mobilized, the Chamber of Commerce issued a call to arms and divided city councilors shifted uncomfortably in their seats as the battle lines were drawn.

Since then, supporters of the bills have traded charges with opponents over who exactly caused the current shortage. The two largest landowners in the proposals thus leading to a new round of sparring in the traditional town-gown conflict. In the meantime, the prospect of urgent housing relief gets buried in layers of political conflict.

Currently, the council is weighing two separate but similar changes to zoning laws. One is sponsored by Councilor David E. Sullivan of the progressive Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) and the other by William Noble of the Cambridge Rent Control Coalition.

Under the Sullivan proposal, builders of complexes containing more than seven apartments must set aside a quarter of the units for low and moderate income tenants. For commercial and institutional facilities of more than 10,000 square feet, such as Harvard might build, developers must provide one unit of housing for every additional 10,000 square feet. The amendment also allows builders the option to pay a cash sum equivalent to the value of the units instead of building the apartments themselves. The coalition proposal differs by requiring more units be set aside in residential construction and it demands the developers themselves build them.

If and when the changes come to a vote (they expire if not acted on before March 4), the three other CCA councilors are expected to throw their weight behind their colleague's less restrictive proposal. Additional support will come from Cambridge Mayor Leonard Russell, who, according to local observers, agreed to back inclusionary zoning a year ago in return for the help Sullivan lent him in his quest to be mayor. Ordinarily, changes in the zoning laws require six votes on the council with former Mayor Alfred E. Vellucci possibly holding the swing vote.

Unlikely

But under state law, if owners of 20 percent of the land affected opppose the changes, the measure needs seven votes to pass--something supporters say would be next to impossible to secure. At the council meeting a week ago, the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce submitted a petition which they say has the requisite number of signature. At the top of the list of opponents were Harvard and MIT.

"The University is not unalterably opposed to a public policy vehicle of inclusionary zoning, says Jacqueline O'Neil', the University's assistant vice president for state and community affairs, "but what has been proposed is very rigid and stringent."

According to supporters, the measures would case the housing crunch caused by, ironically enough, too much building. For more than a decade the city has linked arms with private developers to attract companies to depressed areas like East Cambridge, Kendall Square and Alewife. Now with construction zipping along, the city finds itself having to grapple with the strain on the housing stock caused by the employees of the newly arrived firms. Increased demand has sent rents skyrocketing, even in controlled units, with the average monthly cost of an apartment doubling since 1970 and with existing units going to those who can pay the most. As evidence of the shortage, the Cambridge Housing Authority points to the 1300 applicants on the waiting tries to find affordable places for those with modest incomes.

Demand Raises Rents

Now is this simply a temporary market imbalance, say city officials. Many of those on the waiting lists have been there for years and are being placed at a rate of less than one hundred a year. City employees with the Community Development Department say an additional 4000 units will be needed by the end of the century. If current trends continue, only about one thousand will be built. The end result, they say, is that those who can afford to pay the inflated will find apartments and the lower income groups will be forced to leave unless the city steps in.

"The working people of this city have been attacked on two fronts by university expansion and commercial development." Vellucci said at a recent council meeting. "A whole lot of family houses have been taken away by people hanging around the universities."

Fears of possible gentrification haunt the advocates of the proposals. Many of them see the rapid influx of larger businesses as an instruction that threatens to destroy the city's diverse social fabric threeatents to destroy the city's diverse social fabric. They worry that uncheeked development will replace a Cambridge made up of construction workers and professors, the wealthy on Brattle Street and the ethnic neighborhoods to the east with while dollar professionals attached to the universities and high-tech firms. Only more affordable housing they say, can keep low, and moderate income people in the city.

"New employees will find places to live at the expense of current residents," says Sullivan, "and this will change the face of the city in drastic ways. This is a deliberate social policy to preserve diversity."

But Sullivan and others are gambling on the notion that the new requirements imposed on building will not adversely affect construction and dampen the current commercial boom. They figure that developers will still want to take advantage of Cambridge's prestigious address and companies will continue to prize access to university brain-power and facilities enough to bear what Sullivan estimates is a modest three percent increase in costs.