Since assuming office in January 1994, I have consistently argued that rent control is a misguided public policy. Rather than increasing the supply of quality, affordable housing, rent control's actual effect is to discourage investors and landlords from developing and owning rental housing. Frequently the beneficiaries of rent control are those who do not need it (e.g., the mayor of Cambridge). And, it is an unfair policy whose impact is placed on individual landlords rather than on society as a whole.

As is well known, rent control in Boston and throughout the state was abolished following the passage of 1994's Question 9. The state legislature then passed, and the governor signed, legislation that provided for a phase-out of rent control over two years.

The somewhat precipitous abolition of rent control has forced Boston to grapple with two difficult problems. One has to do with the plight of those individuals who face a transition from rent-controlled housing to market-rate housing. A second, broader issue relates to affordable housing itself: what should the city be doing to encourage the creation of affordable housing for moderate and low income folks?

The first issue has preoccupied the attention of most politicians and the press. This concern is real. Some--not all, but certainly some--individuals will be displaced as their rents rise.

How should we deal with this problem? Some housing activists have pushed rent control as a solution. Several proposals have come before the City Council in this regard. I have not been supportive of these efforts. Indeed, I am blamed by some tenants' groups for stopping what I thought was the most ill-advised piece of rent-control legislation, one which would apply rent controls to all housing that has ever, or will ever, receive a housing subsidy. Another piece of legislation affecting condos, which did pass the council and was signed by the mayor, was substantially modified as a result of my efforts.

The better solution, it seems to me, is to try to address directly the particular needs of those who may be displaced by the transition out of rent control. A first step is to try to figure out exactly who needs help. I have heard figures ranging from 500 to 20,000. Obviously, it helps to know how many actually need assistance. The city is finally beginning to do this.

A second step is to encourage landlords voluntarily to assist. The Rental Housing Association, for example, has been urging its members to hold down rents for tenants who are elderly or at risk. The Fenway Community Development Corporation in the Fenway has taken a similar approach, asking landlords voluntarily to commit to a "Covenant of Care" that protects elderly tenants affected by the end of rent control.

The city can help as well. It should convert the Rent Equity Board into an entity that acts as a problem solver for tenants, helping them to find new housing, assisting them in negotiating with their landlords and providing assistance to those who may end up being displaced.

The second, broader issue, concerns affordable housing itself. What, if anything, should the city do to make affordable housing available?

I believe that affordable housing is an appropriate public policy goal for the city. One of the defining positive characteristics of cities is that they are diverse. Not all citizens are wealthy, not all are poor. The blends of people from different economic, racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds gives a vitality to cities that is missing from more homogenous communities.

But how to accomplish this? Certainly a return to rent control is not a solution. Rather I would look to providing incentives to landlords and developers to increase the supply of affordable housing. I will outline my affordable housing proposal in the next issue.