Council to Weigh Expansion Ordinance

The Cambridge City Council Monday sent to its ordinance committee a plan that, if adopted, would strictly limit the expansion of Harvard and other non-profit institutions into surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The ordinance committee must consider the proposed ordinance--the product of more than a year of debate and research--before the council can vote it into law.

Preliminary counts indicate the ordinance will probably be adopted by the council, but strong opposition at a public hearing scheduled for later this spring might make passage more difficult.

Louis Armistead. Harvard's vice president for government and community affairs, said Monday that the University had not yet decided if it would send an official to testify at the hearing. "It's too early for us to know." Armistead, who declined further comment, said.

Arthur Parris, chairman of the city's Planning Board, sent the ordinance to the council with a cover letter stating. "This is one of the most critical pieces of legislation that the Council has considered in several years." The Planning Board, he said, urged "prompt, favorable action on the proposal."

The draft sent by the Planning Board leaves intact controversial "institutional overlay" districts that Harvard and MIT officials said they feared might become "psychological barriers" to any expansion at all.

If adopted, the ordinance would require that any institution seeking to build a new facility or convert a building to institutional use in a residential area would require a city permit. Many uses would be flatly prohibited in certain areas.

"Two prime objectives are reflected in the proposed regulations." Parris states. "First, the protection of residential neighborhoods from in compatible uses...and second [curtailing] the displacement of residential units from the housing stock."

The council last night continued its discussions on a city budget for the next fiscal year. Department head after department head appeared to answer questions, most of which concerned how they would cope with the 25-per-cent, across-the-board cuts in spending mandated for them by the city manager.

The most controversial proposal discussed last night was a plan recommended by City Manager James L. Sullivan to pay the costs of the city's rent control program through a $2-per-apartment-per-month feel levied on landlords who in turn would pass it on landlords who in turn would pass it on to tenants.