The next Cambridge municipal election remains more than a year away, but realtor Fred Meyer and a group of small landlords are already working to put a question on the 1989 ballot that would weaken the city's 18-year-old rent control law.

Meyer's Proposition 1-2-3 includes three changes in rent control that would cut the number of apartments the system affects. They would also change the system from one that keeps rents low regardless of the occupant's income to a housing program designed specifically for the poor.

The proposition first gained exposure--and met strong opposition--last fall, when it failed to snag a place on the 1987 ballot because the realtor and his allies fell just short of collecting the 3500 necessary petition signatures.

But the Small Property Owners' Association (SPOA) is determined to make the 1989 ballot. Meyer says the group, founded 10 months ago by proponents of Proposition 1-2-3, is already nearing the 3500-signature mark. Canvassers--some of them paid--collected signatures at the polls during the September primary and are likely to work through the November general election.

"First, the proposition will let tenants buy their own homes if they want to, and if their landlords want to sell," Meyer said, describing the proposal.

Under current city law, landlords may sell units only to tenants who have occupied them since before August, 1979. Proposition 1-2-3 would allow residents who have rented a specific unit or home for more than two years to buy their units.

The proposition would also exempt from rent control any home whose owners have lived in it for two years or more. He said the provision would help people who rent out their Cambridge homes for a few months of vacation then return to find they cannot legally evict their tenants.

The third part would create a "means test" that would open up rent-controlled housing only to those with incomes below a certain level.

Strong opposition to Proposition 1-2-3 has already surfaced and comes chiefly from the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA), a city political coalition which supports the rent control laws and advocates only minor revisions.

"There is room for improvement in how the policies are enforced, but long-standing residents of Cambridge shouldn't be kicked out," said Brad Desch, the CCA's executive director. "The CCA strongly opposes 1-2-3. It gives landlords the opportunity to make windfall profits at the expense of Cambridge residents."

Meyer, however, said he did not have personal gain at stake because, though he is a realtor, he does not handle rentals. He said the only beneficiaries of the proposition are those with legitimate need for housing.

The opponents of 1-2-3 agree that the current laws call for some revision, but they advocate reform rather than new legislation.

CCA members have said Meyer's canvassers misrepresented 1-2-3 to gain support from Cambridge residents. "Volunteers who solicited signatures [to get 1-2-3 on the ballot] at the September polls presented the proposition as an affordable housing initiative," said Desch.

Meyer said, "People signed the petition after reading posters that said, 'Put Proposition 1-2-3 on the ballot. Proposition 1 lets you buy an apartment; Proposition 2 lets you rent a home; Proposition 3 helps people pay rent.' This is not misrepresentation."

Undermining Rent Control?

Desch calls the initiative a "sham which only wants to undermine rent control laws. The real estate community is so concerned because this translates into profit for them. They are concerned with the best interest of their businesses, not the best interest of Cambridge."

"Those who don't want to change rent control are rigid because many of their supporters benefit [from rent control]," said SPOA President Peter Sheinfeld. "Rent control has caused homelessness and its own black market--we don't want to abolish rent control, we just want to refinance."

Each side contends that the other has more publicity. But opponents and proponents also agree that 1-2-3 will most likely appear on the 1989 ballot.