Lawyers Offer New Arguments In 7 Sumner Road Conversion

The city's rent control board last night postponed a final decision on Harvard's request for a permit to convert 7 Sumner Rd. from an apartment building to office space.

The indefinite postponement came after Harvard submitted a last-minute memorandum to the board, arguing that the University "has made a considerable effort to lessen the rental housing shortage in Cambridge" and hence should be allowed to take the Sumner Rd. apartments off the rental market for their own use.

Harvard lawyers addressed their arguments in the memorandum to the two-week-old findings of a rent board hearing examiner, who recommended that the full board deny the University the permits required under the city's removal ordinance.

The memorandum argues that the University has helped create elderly and low income housing in the city, "preserved" apartments it purchased as rental housing instead of converting them to condominiums, and created large amounts of housing for students and faculty.

Hearing examiner Margaret Turner stated in her recommendation to the board that the rents at 7 Sumner Rd. and 18-20 Ware St.--an apartment building the University asserts it saved from condominium conversion--were not comparable.

But Harvard's lawyers called that finding "paradoxical," arguing in the memorandum that Harvard could have raised rents at 7 Sumner Rd. to the level of 18-20 Ware St. if it had wished.

Opaque

"Clear thinking justifies" the granting of the permits, the University memo states, concluding "the record of the past eight years clearly demonstrates that Harvard has actively worked against the net erosion of the housing stock of Cambridge."

The University first began its attempts to convert the four-story brick apartment building 21 months ago, but the city has so far refused to grant the necessary permits.

If the University is denied the permits, its only recourse would be to go to court. Harvard officials were unavailable for comment last night but have said in the past that they would not make a decision on initiating a legal challenge until they had exhausted all other options.