BOSTON-Cambridge descended on the State House yesterday, bringing along the incessant battle over rent-control and a slew of city officials, perennial political activists, and John Does wearing party glasses with fake noses and bushy eye-brows attached.

Four bills on rent control sponsored by State Rep. Philip Travis (D. Bristol) were discussed before the House Local Affairs Committee, amidst cheers and jeers by a vociferous audience of members of the Small Property Owners Association (SPOA), which was responsible for drafting the bills, and rent control activists who want to maintain the status quo.

On the political level, much of the discussion focused on the propriety of the way the bills were pushed by SPOA and Travis.

Councillor Jonathan S. Myers, the first speaker on the issue, opened the debate with objections to both the context of the ordinance and the way in which SPOA was dealing with the issue.

"What you are presented with today are tactics. They're not meant to promote discussion," Myers said. "They're merely political acts meant to raise tension in the city."

SPOA President John Natale, who testified yesterday in a prisoner's outfit complete with ball and chain, told the committee, "This is not theater."

Councillor Sheila T. Russell said she supported bringing the issue to the legislature. "The small property owners are in need of relief. With the present make-up of the city council that will not happen," she said.

Natale said Monday that SPOA is now trying to undermine rent control because a bill the group spon- sored last year to abolish it failed. "We want to abolish rent control. We're doing everything in our power to do that-chip away, take a nibble, get it all at once."

In her written testimony, Councillor Alice K. Wolf criticized the legislature's involvement. "It is quite outrageous that a representative from another part of the state is trying to change the operation of rent control in Cambridge," she wrote.

Travis said he was sponsoring the bills because he wanted the property owners to have their say, not in order to hurt the people who live in rent controlled apartments. "I'm not trying to be an ogre and throw people out."

Two of the four bills are currently not being considered by the committee, as they would affect only Cambridge, said Rep. Byron Rushing, the chair of the committee.

Home Rule

This makes them unconstitutional under the home rule provision, which says that any law that has to do with only one city or town must have the approval of that city's or town's legislature.

Most of the testimony by property owners, who could be identified by the SPOA stickers on their lapels, focused on Bill 2260. This bill targets an ordinance which prevents owners from living in their own condominiums if they were converted after August 10, 1979, by making all properties with six or fewer housing units, exempt from rent control.

Many people who are currently illegally occupying their own "ordinance condos" testified anonymously at the hearing, registering as John or Jane Doe and wearing disguises.

While there exists a procedure for applying to the city for an exception from the ordinance, speakers said these were uncommon and that obtaining them entailed great risk.

Fears Persecution

One woman who has been living illegally in her own condominium for about six years said she fears prosecution and is afraid to apply for a permit. "If I apply to the board for a permit, I could be persecuted," she said.

The general counsel to the Cambridge Rent Control Board said violators are not prosecuted.

The other bill discussed was House 2259, which says that Cambridge should be forced to prove on a yearly basis that there is a housing emergency. The assumption that there is a housing emergency is one of the underlying bases of rent control.

Salim A.T. Kabawat, who spoke on behalf of the bills, said the only reason rent control advocates would have for opposing this bill was fear of discovering that a housing emergency no longer exists. If there is a housing emergency, he said, "It could be interpreted as a pro-rent control bill."

Supporters of the rent control system said that re-certifying every year would make rent control more bureaucratic.

But Hong Liu, who bought a rent control rooming house when she came to the U.S. to get her Ph.D. in economics, said rent control is already too bureaucratic.

"Rent control is bureaucracy. It is distortion. It's a handout to the poor. The government should support the poor, not the property owners," Liu said.

However, tenants of rent controlled apartments said they and their friends would be homeless if rent control were eliminated.

Laurence McKinney said the city would lose character and diversity if rent control were abolished. McKinney, who said that despite being a graduate of the Harvard Business School he has never been able to earn more than $15,000 per year, said, "People like me make Cambridge."

Rushing said he would recommend that the committee not take action on the other two bills today since there is another bill on rent control working its way through the system. It should reach the committee in about a week