As the fall campaign of 1989 enters its final weeks, the debate over the controversial ballot referendum known as Proposition 1-2-3 is still raging all over the city.

Well, almost all over. Incumbent City Councillor William H. Walsh last week sent a letter to council hopefuls Edward N. Cyr and Kenneth E. Reeves '72 saying that he would not agree to a debate limited to four candidates and the subject of 1-2-3.

Cyr and Reeves had challenged Walsh and council candidate Alan Bell--both critics of rent control and strong advocates of 1-2-3--to a debate on the referendum last Tuesday, they said.

Proposition 1-2-3 would drastically alter the city's rent control system by allowing tenants who have lived in their rent-controlled apartments for more than two years to buy them. Although proponents of the measure argue that it would give many people an otherwise unavailable chance to own their own homes, critics point out that it could reduce by thousands the city's supply of affordable housing.

"I concur with you that this is an important issue, but I would like to call to your attention that there are a multitude of other issues which deserve equal discussion," Walsh's reply reads. Among the other issues Walsh cited were taxes, the fiscal difficulties of the Cambridge Hospital and the recent cuts in state aid to the city.

A better format for a debate, the letter suggests, would be to invite all the candidates and to have members of the press ask questions on a variety of issues.

Cyr said yesterday that he and Reeves, who are both supported by the city's key liberal organizations, conceived of the debate as a way to offset what they saw as misleading information about 1-2-3 being spread in the campaign.

Articulate Spokesperson

Reeves said that the two picked Bell and Walsh for the challenge because they are "somewhat the most articulate spokesmen for the pro-[1-2-3] position and I think they deeply believe in it."

"What's happening is that the Independents are discovering that they just can't stand up in front of the voters and defend their issues," Cyr said.

Cyr noted that several groups have held forums to which all the candidates were invited, and said such large-scale events tended to gloss over issues.

"That many people cannot debate. That's the bottom line," said Cyr. "Eighteen people cannot have an intelligent discussion."

But Reeves said that he was satisfied with Walsh's response and that he would consider a debate on Walsh's terms.

"My request is that they would read the request and respond in good faith," Reeves said. "I think Bill Walsh has done that."

Controversies about debates are nothing new to Walsh, the current council's most vocal critic of rent control. In response to a challenge two years ago, he offered instead to debate the entire Cambridge Civic Association slate--an offer which he said still stands.

He said that he felt Cyr and Reeves had issued the challenge out of political opportunism.

"I think I was chosen because Ed Cyr needs an uplift in his campaign and he wants to define himself as being against me," Walsh said.

Bell said that he did not know whether he would respond to the challenge, and added that he was unlikely to participate in a debate of all the candidates. He said that he was also suspicious of the challengers' motives.

"I think that it's kind of odd that Ed Cyr and Kenny Reeves are setting themselves apart like that."

He also said he was upset at being too closely associated with Walsh, who he said is "a million miles apart" from him on many issues.