Sorry Mayor Joe, condo proposal is rent control
A commentary by Lenore Schloming

(The views and opinions expressed in the commentaries of the Somerville News belong solely to the commentators themselves and do not neccessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Somerville News, its publishers or its staff.)

   We are happy to hear that Mayor Joseph Curtatone says he is strongly opposed to rent control (Commentary, ‚ÄúOn the proposed condo conversion ordinance, let‚Äôs stick to the facts by Joseph A. Curtatone,‚Äù 5/29/06). But it is puzzling and contradictory when the mayor fails to understand why we describe the proposed condo conversion ordinance as ‚Äúback door rent control.‚Äù So let us explain.

   Mayor Curtatone says: ‚ÄúUnder the terms of the city‚Äôs proposal, landlords who are not engaged in condo conversion are not affected.‚Äù Untrue. All evictions are subject to a condo conversion test, as two sentences from the proposal will show.
   First sentence: ‚ÄúNo tenant shall be evicted in connection with or in anticipation of a condominium conversion, unless a conversion permit has been granted‚Ķ‚Äù But what about all the evictions done without a conversion permit? Second sentence: ‚ÄúThere shall be a rebuttable presumption that an eviction is sought in connection with or in anticipation of a condo conversion‚Ķif there has been an unreasonable increase in rent‚Ķduring the 12-month period immediately prior to the filing of the summary process [eviction] action.‚Äù The idea is to stop an owner from ‚Äújacking up‚Äù the rent to get rid of tenants prior to condo conversion. It already sounds like rent control.
   The tricky words here are ‚Äúrebuttable presumption,‚Äù a legal expression that boils down to you‚Äôre guilty until you prove yourself innocent. ‚ÄúPresumption‚Äù means that any unreasonable rent increase by any owner of rental property in Somerville will be presumed or assumed to be evidence that the owner is seeking the eviction illegally in order to condo-convert, and the eviction will be denied. In other words, despite all the reasons an owner might have to raise the rent or evict a tenant, only one reason ‚Äì intent to condo-convert illegally ‚Äì will be accepted by the court or the condo review board if there has been an ‚Äúunreasonable‚Äù rent increase.
   The word ‚Äúrebuttable‚Äù means, however, that the owner has the right in court or before the condo review board to ‚Äúrebut‚Äù or argue against the presumption that he or she is illegally evicting in order to condo-convert. But what evidence could an innocent owner possibly give that he or she is NOT condo converting? As philosophers say, you can‚Äôt prove a negative. And the court can‚Äôt read the owner‚Äôs mind. In the framework of those two sentences, the only evidence that the owner can give is proof that the rent increase is not an ‚Äúunreasonable,‚Äù jacked-up rent increase.
  But now we have reached rent control by the back door. Whenever a tenant claims a rent increase is ‚Äúunreasonable‚Äù (and almost any rent increase can and will be claimed ‚Äúunreasonable‚Äù), the tenant can refuse to pay it and cannot be evicted unless the owner or his/her attorney stands before the court or the condo review board and explains what expenses he or she had to justify the rent increase as reasonable. That‚Äôs rent control. Merely the time and cost involved in going to court alone will deter many owners from increasing rents.
  The proposal places no limits on the term ‚Äúunreasonable.‚Äù If it did, it would be outright, full-fledged rent control. So what the condo proposal does is give tenants the opportunity to claim that any rent increase is unreasonable. And it gives the court or the condo review board the opportunity to define ‚Äúunreasonable‚Äù any way they like. Meanwhile, Mayor Curtatone is simply asking us to trust him and trust the city that the term ‚Äúunreasonable‚Äù will never, in the mayor‚Äôs own words, be ‚Äúset so low [or] applied so universally as to constitute a form of rent control.‚Äù But we know from the history of rent control and we know from the history of our country that we should never trust the government to limit its own power voluntarily.