Secondly, those who owner-occupy a house or condo are eligible for a property tax exemption, making it very unclear how much, if any, new tax revenue the condo sales would generate. And it is questionable whether 1-2-3 backers really gave Proposition 3 any thought. Even if funds were available and earmarking funds were legally possible, could they design a citywide subsidy program without creating a new city agency? Could they direct the city to build new low-cost rental programs?
Ironically, one segment of Cambridge which stands to lose are owners of market-rate condos. The resale values of these units would decline markedly with a glut on the condo market.
AND now we come back to the less affluent segment of Cambridge those people who would not be here without rent control. For many city residents, freedom is a very different thing than buying a condo: it means having a home where you can afford the rents and you do not live in constant fear of eviction. These are the very protections rent control offers.
In a city as popular as Cambridge, demand for retail housing is greater than supply. That means that in an unregulated market, with fewer than 1 percent of rental apartments vacant, market rents would skyrocket.
When we lose affordable apartments, we lose them forever, because government funding for low-cost units has not been renewed, and private developers have been vigorously fighting linkage plans. More and more condo developments and very few apartment buildings have been constructed in recent years.
Cambridge stands to lose in all ways from Proposition 1-2-3. As we lose affordable housing, we lose residents and the businesses, restaurants and shops which they patronize. So removal from rent control through condo conversion, whether from within (by current tenants) or without (by new tenants or by landlords) has far reaching economic and social results. The entire neighborhood fabric of Cambridge would change.
It all comes down to fairness: the need of low- and moderate-income people for affordable housing over the greed of owners and realtors.
Do not let proponents of Proposition 1-2-3 fool you. It is not about homeownership, although phrasing it that way is a clever ploy. Proposition 1-2-3 is a well-funded effort aimed at the erosion of rent-control. Its sponsors are only concerned with the profits that condo sales and resales could generate.
Stacie Marinelli is co-chair of the Committee to Defeat Proposition 1-2-3