Rent control has long been the focus of sharp disagreements, and the case of Cambridge, Massachusetts illustrates the contours of the multifaceted debate. This struggle over the social control of space—characterized by strongly individualized and adversarial relations exaggerated by the structural apparatus of the Cambridge system—has resulted in a tense standoff between supporters and critics. Insights from the paradigm of alternate dispute resolution, from recent cooperative efforts between environmental protection and economic development advocates, and from newly formed coalitions between abortion opponents and supporters of abortion rights suggest that moderation, negotiation, and compromise offer a way out of the current impasse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abt Associates.1987. Cambridge housing study: Final report.Cambridge, MA: Author.
2.
AchtenbergE. P.1973. The social utility of rent control. In Housing in urban America, edited by PynoosJ., SchaferR., and HartmanC. W., 434–47. Chicago: Aldine.
3.
American Bar Association Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution.1990. Dispute resolution program directory.Chicago: Author.
4.
AppelbaumR. P., DolnyM., DrierP., and GilderbloomJ.. 1991. Scapegoating rent control: Masking the causes of homelessness. Journal of the American Planning Association57(2): 153–65.
5.
AtlasJ., and DreierP.. 1980. The housing crisis and the tenants’ revolt. Social Policy10(4): 13–24.
6.
BlockW., and OlsenE., eds. 1981. Rent control: Myths and realities.Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.
DevineA.1990. Field study on low rent units. A follow-up report to The Mayor's Green Ribbon Committee to Research and Propose Minimum Rents, 15 August. City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
14.
DownsA.1983. Rental housing in the 1980s.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
DreierP.1989. Economic growth and economic justice in Boston: Populist housing and jobs policies. In Unequal partnerships: The political economy of urban redevelopment in postwar America, edited by SquiresG., 35–58. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
16.
EdelM., SclarE., and LuriaD.. 1984. Shaky places: Homeownership and social mobility in Boston's suburbanization.New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
17.
EdwardsH.T.1986. Alternative dispute resolution: Panacea oranathema?Harvard Law Review99(3): 668–84.
18.
FeaginJ. R., and ParkerR.. 1990. Building American cities: The urban real estate game.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
FissO.1984. Against settlement. Yale Law Journal93: 1073.
20.
GoetzeR.1983. Rescuing the American dream: Public policy and the crisis in housing.New York: Holmes & Meier.
21.
GoetzeR.1990. Cambridge housing challenges.Final report to the city of Cambridge. Cambridge, MA: Community Development Department.
22.
GilderbloomJ. I.1981. Moderate rent control: Its impact on the quality and quantity of the housing stock. Urban Affairs Quarterly17(2): 123–42.
23.
GilderbloomJ. I., and AppelbaumR. P.. 1988. Rethinking rental housing.Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press.
24.
GoldbergS. B.1989. Litigation, arbitration, or mediation: A dialogue. American Bar Association Journal75: 70–72.
25.
GuptaD. K., and ReaL. M.. 1984. Second-generation rent control ordinances: A quantitative comparison. Urban Affairs Quarterly9(3): 395–408.
26.
HayekF. A.1975. Rent control: A popular paradox.Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.
27.
KainJ. F.1974. Evaluation of the Sternlieb and Harbridge House reports on rent control in Massachusetts.Cambridge, MA: Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University.
28.
KanowitzL.1986. Cases and materials on alternative dispute resolution.St. Paul, MN: West.
29.
KolbD. M.1983. The mediators.Cambridge: MIT Press.
30.
KresselK., and PruittD. C.. 1989. Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party intervention.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
LettM.1976. Rent control: Concepts, realities, and mechanisms.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
32.
LewinT.1992. In bitter abortion debate, opponents learn to reach for common ground. New York Tunes, 17 February, A10.
33.
LowryI. S.1970. Rental housing in New York City, Vol. 1: Confronting the crisis.New York: Rand Institute and McKinsey Company.
34.
LowryI. S., deSalvoJ. S., and WoodfillB. M.. 1971. Rental housing in New York City, Vol. 2: The demand for shelter.New York: Rand Institute and McKinsey Company.
35.
MatthewsM.1991. Alternative dispute resolution: Practice and perspectives.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
36.
MerryS. E., and SilbeyS. S.. 1984. What do plaintiffs want?Justice System Journal9: 151–78.
37.
MollenkopfJ., and PynoosJ.. 1973. Boardwalk and Park Place: Property ownership, political structure, and housing policy at the local level. In Housing in urban America, edited by PynoosJ., SchaferR., and HartmanC. W., 55–74. Chicago: Aldine.
38.
NiebanckP. L.1985. The rent control debates.Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
RosenbergM.1989. The Mayor's Green Ribbon Committee to Research and Propose Minimum Rents: Report of the chairman. December. City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
41.
RosenblattR.1992a. Life itself: Abortion in the American mind.New York: Random House.
42.
RosenblattR.1992b. How to end the abortion war. New York Times Magazine, 19 January, sec. 6.
43.
SanderFrank. 1990. Alternative methods of dispute resolution: A U.S. perspective.Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
44.
ShapiroP.1990. Suggested list of topics for fall discussion by Rent Control Subcommittee. Submitted 10 September and included in Rent control reform proposals, sec. IV: 32–44. City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
45.
SingerL. S.1990. Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system.Boulder, CO: Westview.
46.
SmithD.1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology.Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press.
47.
StegmanM. A.1985. The model: Rent control in New York City. In The rent control debates, edited by NiebanckP. L., 29–55. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
48.
SternliebG., and HughesJ. W.. 1980. America's housing: Project and problems.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research.
49.
TuckerW.1987. Where do the homeless come from?National Review, 25 September, 32–43.
50.
TuckerW.1990. The excluded Americans.Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.
51.
Van VlietW., CholdinH., MichelsonW., and PopenoeD.. 1987. Housing and neighborhoods: Theoretical and empirical contributions.New York: Greenwood.
52.
Who won?1990. The Tenant Independent13: 2.
53.
ZarembkaA.1990. The urban housing crisis: Social, economic, and legal issues and proposals.Westport, CT: Greenwood.
