The Cambridge City Council adjourned its meeting last night rather than discuss an eleventh-hour resolution on a ballot measure seeking to reintroduce rent control to the city.

Since today is the deadline for the city council to take action on the ballot into its own hands—and with the failure of a recent challenge to the validity of the petition—the rent control ballot initiative will now indefinitely be placed on the ballot for the Nov. 5 citywide election.

If Cambridge voters approve the measure in the polls, the city will file a so-called “home-rule petition” with the state legislature. If the legislature votes affirmatively, the city would be able to re-enact rent control laws within its borders even though the practice was banned in Massachusetts in 1994.

Councillor Brian P. Murphy ’86 said that he is reluctant to support the rent control ballot initiative because it is unlikely to pass in the state legislature.

“I would rather focus on positive things that we can do as a council,” Murphy said.

Last week, opponents of rent control challenged about 1,450 of the 4,500 signatures on the petition to put rent control on the ballot—enough to invalidate the petition.

But the Cambridge Election Commission rejected all but 17 challenges, leaving enough signatures to put the rent control measure on the ballot.

Once the petition was validated, the city council had two options: to send the petition to the state legislature directly or to take no action.

With the clock ticking down towards the deadline for council action, Councillors Anthony D. Galluccio, David P. Maher, Timothy J. Toomey and Mayor Michael A. Sullivan introduced a measure late in last night’s meeting asking the council to oppose the reintroduction of rent control while still placing the matter before voters.

Councillor Marjorie C. Decker moved to adjourn the meeting at that point, and a divided council accepted her motion.

“I think it’s a vote of cowardice and an affront to democracy,” said Toomey, who said he opposes rent control but wants to see the referendum on the ballot. “If they can’t stand up and say where they stand on a tough issue they should not be in this chamber.”

Maher had a similar reaction.

“It shouldn’t make a difference whether you’re for or against rent control. More dialogue is good,” he said. “It was our hope to have some dialogue and have some positions of the councillors heard tonight.”

Its inclusion as an unannounced late measure under unfinished business made the parliamentary procedure surrounding it murky, Decker said.

“This issue is charged and divisive. I didn’t know this measure was going to be discussed until minutes before it came up,” she said. “Civic leaders need to model a discussion based on substance, and not politics as usual three weeks before an election.”

Murphy said he also voted to adjourn because of the measure’s irregular introduction. “I thought it was unnecessarily pointed and divisive,” he said.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons, a staunch supporter of rent control, said she felt a victory had been won.

“One first success was collecting the signatures,” she said. “This is another major success for those who support affordable rent in Cambridge.”

Cambridge Committee for Rent Control member Kevin Bradley was also happy with the measure. “This is the beginning of a change of the way the housing problem is thought about in Massachusetts and especially Cambridge and metropolitan Boston,” he said.

Down by the River

Housing was the central theme of last night’s meeting, which lasted almost four hours.

In addition to the controversy over rent control, councillors expressed strong opposition to state increases in public housing rents and moved one step closer to a crucial vote on the rezoning of the Riverside neighborhood.

The central issue of debate over Riverside rezoning is how much and what Harvard can build on its parcels in the neighborhood. Two petitions currently sit in the council’s unfinished business: the first was formulated by neighborhood activists; the other is a more moderate proposal put forward by the city’s planning board.

Both petitions are set to expire on Oct. 28. Last night, the council passed the petitions on to a second reading, which Maher said is a “procedural maneuver” that advances the petitions to a vote.

The council will meet on Oct. 20 and Oct. 27, and Maher indicated a vote could take place at either of those meetings.

Maher and Murphy, the co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee, have been meeting with neighborhood representatives and University officials to try to reach a compromise, and last week Harvard presented new plans for its land holdings along the river.

During last night’s public comment period, several Riverside residents urged the council to pass the zoning petition developed by local activists. They blasted the timing of Harvard’s proposals, which they said came too late in the process.

“Watch out for these 25th hour shenanigans from Harvard,” said Cob Carlson, the activist for whom the neighborhood petition is named. “They’ve won just about every battle in Cambridge. It’s time for us to win one.”

But Maher said he thought there was still time to continue the discussions and reach an agreement on key neighborhood goals that wouldn’t fall under the zoning regulations, such as open space, affordable housing and the use of institutional buildings.

“It may be late in the process, but the University has indicated a willingness to compromise,” Maher said.

Citing “frustration” with the way the Riverside rezoning process had progressed, Galluccio sponsored an order last night that would require educational institutions that construct housing in the city to meet the same requirements for affordable housing that private developers must follow.

The council passed the order unanimously, and the city will now draft a home rule petition that would need the approval of the state legislature.

Galluccio said the measure would “send a message that we no longer want to be held hostage” in negotiations over how many affordable housing units local universities must include in their development projects.

He said he hoped to work with the universities and hoped they would support the order.

“This isn’t meant to be adversarial,” he said.

University representatives could not be reached for comment late last night.

—Staff writer Jessica R. Rubin-Wills can be reached at rubinwil@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Kate A. Tiskus can be reached at tiskus@fas.harvard.edu