Antiquated Exemptions

THE CITY of Cambridge can legally regulate the growth of every educational institution in Cambridge--except Harvard College. The state legislature has a unique opportunity to remedy that inequity this spring when it considers a bill which would repeal Harvard's exemptions and force the University to work with a city it has too frequently ignored.

Cambridge won the right to regulate land use plans of non-profit institutions from the legislature last year, but the House counsel ruled that an antiquated passage in the state constitution protected Harvard from any sort of regulation. Since that time, University officials have said repeatedly that they do not think the constitution protects them from zoning requirements, and that in any case they will not use it as a shield. It is difficult to understand, then, why Harvard-employed lobbyist Roger Moore testified in opposition to the University's inclusion with other educational institutions under city zoning codes.

If Harvard were willing to work with the city and consider neighborhood needs as it develops its plans for the future, the zoning requirement would be a mere formality. Because Harvard has flaunted its independence, the law is a necessity. If city zoning and land use ordinances applied to the University, Cambridge officials might have prevented the eviction of tenants from 7 Sumner Rd.; they might have forced Harvard to listen more seriously to its neighbors during the construction of the Quad Athletic Complex; and they might be able to do more than plead for responsible development of the three-acre parcel of open land in the Square recently purchased by the University.