More than a year after the Cambridge City Council rejected proposals to link future building with support for low- and moderate-income housing, the city is still considering the concept.

Linkage is a legal formulation which requires developers who build new commercial and residential structures to provide housing for low-and moderate-income tenants in proportion to the size of the project.

Last year, the nine-member city council failed to give a required seven-vote majority for a proposal that would have changed Cambridge zoning laws to provide a linkage program in the city. The ordinance would have required developers to provide 25 percent of the residential units for low- and moderate-income tenants in all larger building projects.

The proposal was defeated after Cambridge property owners invoked a state law requiring the seven-vote majority--instead of the usual six votes--to approve zoning changes if 20 percent of affected property owners protest. Harvard and MIT, which together own more than 20 percent of Cambridge property, protested the linkage proposal and the measure failed by one vote.

Despite the current stalemate on the issue in city politics, the Linkage Study Committee, headed by City Councilor Francis H. Duehay '55, continues to investigate linkage proposals and has recently authorized a $30,000 study on the subject which will evaluate the costs and benefits of linkage.

"There's a variety of possibilities--what the study is going to do is flush out the costs and benefits to the community and to the developers," said Duehay.

The study, which is being conducted by an outside consulting firm, is funded by the city Community Development Office and by state grants. Duehay said the city council will monitor the study as it progresses.

"What I am going to do with the city council is to keep them very involved in the progress and details of this study," he said.

Duehay said he hopes to avoid many of the problems that scuttled the previous attempt to bring linkage to Cambridge by involving as many groups as possible in formulating the proposal.

However, in order to pass such a proposal, fewer than 20 percent of Cambridge property owners will have to protest the ordinance so even city councilors will have to support it. As the situation stands, neither condition likely.

City Councilor David E. Sullivan, an outspoken proponent of linkage, said, "the political circumstances haven'tchanged significantly" from last year. He said sixcouncilors currently support linkage and neitherHarvard nor MIT appears willing to agree to alinkage plan.

However, Duehay said he is confident that somekind of linkage plan will pass.

"This is going to be a search for the commonground," he said.

The situation for low- and moderate-incomehousing in the last two years has grownincreasingly urgent, according to Duehay. "If wecould only create 75 or 100 units a year, thatwould be more than what we are doing now," hesaid.

Duehay said that he expected the study to becompleted by February and that he would aim to geta linkage plan passed by next April.

Sullivan said he thought the chances of alinkage proposal passing were slim.

If the linkage plan fails, however, Duehay saidother methods of increasing support for low-incomehousing might be used.

He said the study group was looking intoexpanding current programs to increase housing forlower income tenants including rent subsidies andcity rehabilitation of rent-controlled housingunits.

Duehay also said the city should coordinate itsvarious agencies in a more concerted effort toinduce developers to provide support for low-andmoderate-income housing.

He said that developers must deal with variouscity boards and agencies to build in Cambridge. Ifthe boards and agencies which must approve planswere more coordinated, the city could use waiversto zoning ordinances and other inducements topressure developers "voluntarily" to supportlow-income housing, according to Duehay