CITY RENEWAL FUNDS

To the Editors of the Crimson:

The article by William Woodward in the Harvard Summer News of Tuesday, August 1, 1967, headlined "Harvard May Block City Renewal Funds" contains several serious errors:

(1)Contrary to the statement made in the article. Harvard could not "block" City renewal funds even if it wanted to do so--which it doesn't. The University has worked closely with the City since urban renewal first began in Cambridge in 1956, and is presently working closely with both the Cambridge Planning Board and the Citizens Advisory Committee on preliminary planning for Harvard Square.

(2)The figure quoted of $10 million dollars in so-called Section 112 credits is without basis in fact. No one has calculated the credits under existing conditions, let alone estimate them for possible future plans. These credits have a life-span of five years, and therefore vary from moment to moment.

(3)No discussion has been held between the City and the University about these credits as alleged. Nothing can be discussed until a plan is developed--which might take anywhere from one to five years.

(4)The University did not "back out of two [urban renewal] projects in 1961 and 1963." Harvard was not a part of the three projects voted down by the City Council in 1961. There was no new urban renewal project in 1963.

It seems to us that the reporter does a disservice to the reader by such gross inaccuracies--inaccuracies which present an overall picture which is contrary to fact. Charles P. Whitlock   Assistant to the President for   Civic and Governmental Relations   Alan McClennen   Cambridge Planning Director   Paul J. Frank, Executive Director   Citizens Advisory Committee   formerly Acting Director   Cambridge Redevelopment Authority