Do-It-Yourself

IN AMERICA, where every difference of opinion ends up in court, only lawyers are happy. That's why any new way of settling grievances--like the agreement hammered out between the backers of a massive Harvard Square development and the residents surrounding the development--is so encouraging.

For years community residents have battled with the developers over the size and nature of the project; last week, most of them pledged to drop their opposition if the builders would agree to trim the size of the shopping mall portion of the project drastically, which locals had feared would attract too much traffic.

The agreement is not ironclad--not everyone has signed it, though the biggest guns in the battle against the development were among the negotiators and the first to agree. The Planning Board has yet to approve the new plans--and there are signs they may be wary of the changes. Fearing that Harvard Square is becoming too youth-oriented, some members of the board had hoped a large retail development in Parcel 1B might anchor the Square and slow the transition.

We urge the developer to quickly draw the plans, allowing community input into the actual design process. Once that is accomplished, the Planning Board should recognize that the agreement signed last week represents the will of the neighbors and acquiesce. And then everyone should step back and let the cranes and cement mixers roll in--even people who have not signed the agreement should honor the compromise it represents and not challenge the new plans.

Others--in Cambridge and elsewhere--should examine this new form of agreement, reached out of court and privately, without government intervention. More than likely, the legal profession will figure out some way to destroy them, but for now, such pacts represent a common-sense alternative to the protracted bitterness and high costs of court.