The sponsor of Proposition 1-2-3, a condominium conversion proposal, says his canvassers have already collected more than enough signatures to put it on the 1989 municipal ballot.

Frederick R. Meyer, the Cambridge realtor who wrote Proposition 1-2-3, says he had "at least double" the required number of signatures. Eight percent of Cambridge's registered voters--about 3500 people--must sign the petition to make it a binding referendum question, Meyer says.

The signatures in support of the proposition, collected at polling sites last Tuesday, are still being counted and verified as those of voters registered in Cambridge, Meyer says.

Proposition 1-2-3 is a three-part measure that would amend Cambridge's rent control ordinance to let many tenants of controlled apartments buy their units as condominiums.

Advocates say it would increase the tax base and aid homeownership, but opponents have argued that it would reduce the amount of rent-controlled housing, allowing only those who can afford condominiums to remain in Cambridge.

Proposition I would allow tenants of rent-controlled apartments to buy the units if they have lived there for two years. Proposition 2 would allow people who have occupied and owned their homes for two years to rent them out exempt from rent control.

Finally, Proposition 3 would create a fund for housing subsidies from two-thirds of the increase in tax revenue that the condominium conversions would produce. Rent-controlled apartments are assessed well below similar structures with the legal status of condominiums.

Success No Surprise

City Councillor David E. Sullivan, an outspoken supporter of rent control, says he was not surprised at the proposition's success. "I expected all along that it would be on the ballot," says Sullivan. "I intend to work as hard as I can to defeat it."

Sullivan also criticizes the Cambridge Homeowners' Association, which sponsored the petition, for using paid temporary employees who were ill-informed about the proposition to solicit signatures.

"Everybody uses paid workers in a political campaign," Meyer says. "Otherwise, why allow political contributions?"

"The people soliciting didn't know much about [Proposition 1-2-3], but the Cambridge residents did," Meyer says. "People have heard of it, support it, wanted to sign it."

"I think it would mean the death of rent control in a very short time," Sullivan says. "It's not in the interest of the average Cambridge citizen or the city in the future."

"This is a real estate industry proposal," says Robert O. Edbrooke, co-chair of the Cambridge Tenants' Union. "It has been misrepresented as a pro-tenant proposition."

If the proposal were adopted, the number of rental units in the city would diminish and landlords would be encouraged to rent only to those people who could afford to buy their apartments, Edbrooke says.

But Meyer says that, "If the argument is, 'this is going to encourage the landlords to rent to wealthy people,' they do it now." He adds that even under existing law, landlords of rent-controlled buildings prefer tenants who can afford to pay their rent consistently.

Proposition 1-2-3 would turn Cambridge into "a city in which you would have to be rich in order to be able to live here," Sullivan says, since it would result in "massive condo conversion" and raise the cost of housing in general.

"I would argue, as prices go up, so do the taxes, so the money in your rent subsidy fund goes up," Meyer says, referring to Proposition 3. he adds that he would expect about 10 percent of tenants to buy their units, not the entire population.

"If a tenant buys their own apartment, the number of homeowners is going up by one, and I would argue that that's not bad, that's good," Meyer says. "Homeownership is a good thing."