And while Dober admits that his study may contain some flaws, he defends his methodology and calls the study the only available empirical data on 1-2-3's effects.

"My whole angle on this is that there's been a lot of rhetoric, but this is the only study that's based on actual data of what the market would be," Dober says.

'Fig Leaf'

Opponents of 1-2-3 also received a boost this summer when the state Department of Revenue ruled that the third part of the referendum--which establishes an affordable housing trust funded by the increased tax revenue generated by condominium conversion--could not be implemented.

The ruling found that such a fund would have to be approved annually by the City Council.

So, as Councillor and rent control advocate David E. Sullivan puts it, "Point 3 is essentially a dead letter. That particular fig leaf that the sponsors are using to cover up the other things they are doing is no longer available."

But Meyer insists that there is nothing wrong with the intent of the third point in its original form, even if it is unworkable.

"When 1-2-3 passes, I dare any one of [the city councillors] to say, 'No, no. no. We don't want the affordable housing fund," he says.

Procedural Limbo

There is also a slim possibility that the referendum may not appear on the November ballot: The city election commission has been wrangling over the wording of the proposition's preamble.

At issue is a preamble reference to "changing rent control. "But since rent control was enacted by a state home-rule petition, a city referendum like 1-2-3 cannot represent an actual "change," sponsors argue.

At a June 6 meeting, the four-member commission approved a compromise wording for the measure. But at a later meeting in August, Republican Commissioner Artis B. Spear, who had originally voted for the compromise, moved to reconsider the decision.

Catching the Voter's Attention

Edward J. Samp, the Republican who chairs the four-member Election Commission, says he opposed the wording at the July meeting because he believed it would mislead voters.

"[The words] were purposefully designed to catch the attention of the person who has come to vote and who has not studied the proposal carefully," says Samp. "The basic argument between [Democratic Commissioner Sondra B.] Scheir and myself is, 'does this in fact constitute a buzzword?'"

City Solicitor Russell B. Higley is now looking into the matter at Scheir's request, and if he decides that Samp was out of order in allowing the August motion, the earlier version will appear on the ballot. Otherwise, the commission may not be able to agree on the wording in time for the election.

"Once that ruling is delivered," says Scheir, "it may very well end up in court anyway."