"Cambridge isn't being developed because it's cheap, it's because it's Cambridge, and that won't change," says Sullivan, adding "I don't think Fortune 500's will be driven from town."

Russell agrees:" They say they would go elsewhere, but I don't believe it, Cambridge is the place to be in the 80's."

Development Freeze?

Not so, says David Clem, one of the real estate developers spearheading the opposition. A former city councilor. Clem computes that when the costs of construction delay--caused by the new permit process--are added in. Sullivan's three percent increase in costs becomes 15 percent. And that, he says, would freeze development.

"These ordinances will stop development," he says, "They will send a salvo to the development community that Cambridge is not interested in the private sector."

Both at public hearings and in the press, angry builders charge the city with poisoning what has been up until now a productive working relationship. After being courted for years by a city eager for development they now find themselves socked with restrictive requirements that in short amount to an unfair tax.

"What is really being proposed is a law on development, a tax on going ahead with construction," says David Barrett, Senior vice president of Boston Properties Adds Trinity Group's Thomas G. Digiovanni '78 another Cambridge developer, "Mr. Sullivan is looking to business to solve the problems the city can't solve itself and by implication blaming the business community for the problems that exist."

Sullivan denies that the proposals tax developers. He say they merely seek to make developers responsible for the extra load they put on the housing stock. He compares linkage to current regulations requiring developers to provide parking or those forcing factories to control pollution.

"Development is causing demand for housing and developers should have to meet that demand," says the councilor. "No one should have be able to realize the benefits of the Cambridge location without assuming some of the cost."

Imminent Lawsuits

But the law, it would appear, is on the developers' side. Under the state constitution, cities that require special building permits must in turn grant density bonuses or other forms of zoning relief, something the current proposed fail to do. The city solicitor office issued a report last week recommending a vote against the amendments on the grounds that they will embroil the city in a host or lawsuits. Supporters of the bills contend, however, that increases in density would arouse the opposition of neighborhood groups worried about the quality of life in their areas.

Developers also bristle at the charge that they singlehandedly produced the housing crisis and try to shift the blame for the shortage on the city's restrictive rent control policy. Indeed, much of the controversy surrounding inclusionary zoning and linkage centers around this perennially volatile issue. Under city rules, rental units built before 1970 are regulated regardless of whether a yuppie or a blue collar worker occupies it. The 16-year-old rent control ordinance currently blankets 17,000 units, or 40 percent of the housing stock.

If the system targeted controlled units to those who needed it, developer, say, the lines at the housing authority would shrink and they would not have to provide extra housing at gunpoint. Those who could afford to pay market rates would then be forced to do so and residential builders would meet the demand. But now, with the present policy, middle-class tenants take up space low income families would have. With a dearth in housing money coming from Washington collers and builders claiming that low income housing is not profitable, nothing is getting built.

"The failure of rent control is that there is no needs test," says Clem. "Regulated units are being passed from friend to friend," Adds David Hughes of the Chamber." When 17,000 units are not turning over or don't become available to those who need them rent control is not accomplishing its purpose."

Major Overhaul Needed