Rent control opponents rejoiced over the court's decision yesterday.

Cambridge City Councillor William H. Walsh, an outspoken

opponent of rent control, said seeing rentcontrol go to the voters is "probably the biggestvictory I have had."

"They violated everybody's consistutionalrights with rent control for their own politicalgain," he said of fellow councilors who supportthe ceilings.

Walsh compared the struggle of rent controlopponents to that faced by American colonists inthe 18th century.

Rent control supporters "just went too farunder the guise of home rule, and the peoplerebelled, as they did 200 years ago," Walsh said.

Jillson also said she was "delighted" with theruling.

She said she hasn't started planning apre-referendum push but hopes to build a networkaround small property owners.

But as pleased as rent control supporters, weretheir opponents were equally upset.

Rent control advocates universally denouncedthe ruling as a bad precedent, and said it wouldhurt thousands of Cambridge residents.

City Councilor Katherine Triantafillou said shethought the decision marked "a sad day for thetenants and for the city of Cambridge."

"I'm surprised at the decision," Triantafillousaid. "It seems to me that as city ought to beable to pass rules and regulations without beingsecond guessed by" the state.

Triantafillou added that a ban on rent controlwould devastate the city.

If the ban goes through, "there will be a lotof displacement of low income people,"Triantafillou said. "I truly believe there will bea lot of hardship."

Lead plaintiff Charles A. Ash, a Cambridgeresident who lives in a rent-controlled apartment,agreed.

"This would reduce Cambridge into very richpeople and very poor people in subsidizedhousing," Ash said. "If this goes through, I'll beout on the streets."