Scott Harshbarger, Massachusetts’ Attorney General and almost-announced candidate for Governor in 1998, was asked by the Ward 5 Democratic Committee recently if, as Governor, he would sign a rent control bill. He hesitated and ultimately ducked the question, noting in passing that he wanted to avoid the ideological clashes that measures such as rent control provoked.

The answer to the question should have been easy. It’s, “no.” And the reason it’s “no” is not because rent control is inherently controversial. It’s because rent control does not succeed in accomplishing what it is supposed to accomplish. It does not help create affordable housing.

Rent control died in Boston in January, two years after voters and the Massachusetts legislature voted it out of existence. Boston, Brookline and Cambridge, the three Massachusetts municipalities most dependent on rent control, now face some tough problems in handling individuals who, once dependent on rent control, now find themselves at risk of losing their homes. The right response is for those municipalities themselves to offer direct assistance to the few who are at risk and cushion as much as possible the transition out of rent control.

There is a broader public policy issue at stake however, and its importance is heightened by the four-year economic boom the region has enjoyed and the concomitant rise in real estate costs throughout the Boston area. Have you tried to rent or buy lately? Prices are staggering. Real estate in Beacon Hill and Back Bay, long the highest in the city, are now so exorbitant that they bring to mind the speculation in the late ‘80s that land in Tokyo was worth more than all of the real estate in North America. (The subsequent collapse in Tokyo real estate should not be forgotten.) Real estate in other parts of the city that once were more affordable has also gotten out of hand. The North End, South End and the Fenway are now all priced out of reach of those with modest incomes.

This is not good. Part of Boston’s strength as a city comes from the diversity of its residential communities -- including their economic diversity. Allowing communities to become unaffordable drives out the young, the old, those who are just starting out and those whose career paths bring them in directions (such as art and music) that are not necessarily lucrative. Boston needs all of those people, and it’s time the city developed a public policy that made that clear.

The solution, it seems to me, is to create a program that provides financial incentives to developers and others to create and rehabilitate affordable properties. Ideally such developments would have a mix of market and affordable units, much like Tent City in the South End. It’s a market-based strategy that costs public money. But properly used, those public funds can be leveraged with private dollars to produce a lot of housing.

Last year the City Council pushed this notion hard. Unfortunately, it stalled, receiving little support from the Administration. Indeed, the response from the Administration was to decry the end of rent control and to push the City Council to enact bills that would extend it further.

This year, in the midst of a Mayoral election, it may worthwhile for us to sit back and contemplate Boston’s vision for itself. Beating the rent control drum is futile, both from a public policy point-of-view and from a practical politics point-of-view (the legislature and Governor will not allow it to be re-enacted). I believe a market-based affordable housing policy that does not rely on rent control is the answer. It is the kind of policy that would set Boston on a course towards ensuring it is a city where all are welcomed, and all can afford to live.