The war is on at Albany. Governor Pataki has staked out his turf: He’s ready to veto tax increases and spending increases that will crush New York’s economy. The Legislature has staked out its: Both houses are ready to boost tax rates sky-high to avoid any tough choices, and the Senate’s majority leader, Jos. Bruno, is in full revolt and ready to override a veto. No one seems to be noticing, but the governor harbors a weapon of political mass destruction: rent control.

The last time reauthorization of rent control came up in 1997,a nasty fight consumed Albany for months. Eventually, a compromise was reached, and rent control was extended for six years. That puts the next reauthorization in a particularly fortuitous place on the legislative calendar. The law has a sunset provision, taking effect on June 15, 2003 — perfectly timed for Mr. Pataki to make a credible threat. Mr. Pataki can declare that if the Legislature overrides him on the budget, he will veto any extension of rent control.

The end of rent control would be a wonderful thing in and of itself. It has stunted growth in New York’s housing market, especially in New York City, and serves mainly as a subsidy to lucky members of the middle and upper classes in Manhattan. The gover nor would be unwise to roll over on rent control no matter what the Legislature does in the coming weeks on the budget. But it’s starting to occur to a few people around town that the Legislature’s leaders might have to think about their current antics if they knew tax hikes would mean the governor going nuclear next month on rent.

One complication with this strategy, from Mr. Pataki’s point of view, is that the Legislature could simply override him again in June — that would be a humiliating defeat. But an override would require Mr. Bruno to reverse a long history of opposition to rent control, opposition he’s maintained for his own good reasons. In the 1997 fight, Mr. Bruno promised personally to “end rent control.” To reverse one’s position so drastically, just to see through a political fight, would be a memorable maneuver. Mr. Bruno may not be so agile. A chink, it seems, could open in the alliance between Mr. Bruno and his new pal, Speaker Silver.

Mr. Pataki, if he were forced to push the button, would be keeping with his principles. Furthermore, he would be generating revenue for the state by creating jobs, increasing property values and therefore the property tax take — that could allow for tax cuts down the line. Sounds like a win-win proposition to us.