HARVARD, HOUSING. . .

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The key issue which was presented to the entire Cambridge community by the 900 persons assembled September 4 at the Cambridge Housing Convention was not rising rents, but the rapidly dwindling supply of low-cost housing. The consequence of this is that hundreds and thousands of persons and families of low income are being forced to leave Cambridge. Those most severely hit are the elderly, most of whom live on extremely limited fixed incomes. The CEOC sruvey of the elderly, completed July 1, 1968, dramatically illustrates the crisis in housing of which we speak. 2061 surveys were taken. Of the 75 per cent who agreed to state their income close to two thirds said they had incomes of less than $1,500 per year.

In the light of this it isn't Harvard or the academic community which has a housing problem, as Mr. Pusey suggests. It is the poor and the elderly of Cambridge, some of whom, I might add, are Harvard and MIT pensioners. We have in no way excluded Harvard from its position as a citizen of Cambridge. Rather we suggest that Harvard is failing very seriously its responsibilities as a citizen of Cambridge. Mr. Whitlock's letter noted that 4,400 undergraduates live on campus, and an additional 1,000 in Harvard housing. Where, we ask, do the other 10,000 Harvard students live? The answer, of course, is that many live in Cambridge, competing for what few low-cost housing units are available, and winning the competition because of a greater ability to pay. This, we contend, is the cause of the steadily escalating rents, and it is something for which the institutions of this city must accept primary responsibility.

According to Mr. Pusey Harvard is "trying to alleviate the housing shortage through the Cambridge Corporation." We must point out that the Cambridge Corporation's total contribution to low-cost housing during the 2 1/2 years since it was staffed and ready for operation, is a 2-unit rehabilitation effort, hardly of any significance given the nature of the crisis.

We seek to speak with the policy makers because the changes which must be made require significant shifts in policy priorities. To cite but one example, a policy decision to cease listing private market units in the Harvard Housing Office would make available on the open market literally hundreds of apartments. As it stands now many real estate films list units exclusively with this office thus effectively discriminating against the residents, poor and otherwise, who have no access to the Harvard Housing Office. These firms list there also because they know they can get away with charging higher rents to students, who demand less in services or quality of apartment, and who are not aware of the injustice to which they contribute.

If students want to do anything about this crisis, they can demand that the University build low-cost housing for them in larger amounts, and do so quickly. They can also refuse to compete for what low-cost housing remains.

It is somehow very much a symptom of the problem that the Crimson is able to speak with the President of Harvard College about the housing crisis but that the people of Cambridge and this Housing Convention are not. It is also worth noting the difference in M.I.T.'s response to our request for a meeting. The Coordinating Committee is now arranging with Dr. Killian a meeting to discuss the substantial issues raised by the resolutions with him. We simply want to see Harvard begin to assume its responsibilities and begin to act, immediately and decisively and constructively, to solve the crisis. Nothing more, and nothing less. Daniel F. Connelly   Chairman, Coordinating Committee   Cambridge Housing Convention -1-1