IN BOSTON, were the Mayor able to summon the courage to abandon the conventional approach and hand resources over to community control, he might also solve his own administive headache. He too could say: 'You people decidewhat is best for your neighbourhood. We'll help -- but it cannot be our decision."

Such an approach, of course, would also shrewdly pull the Mayor's own head out of the line of political fire which will develop from one direction or the other--no matter which way he turns in coming encounters.

The Columbus example has been tried in dozens of other communities--including New York's Bedford-Stuyvesant, in a project sponsored by Senator Robert Kennedy. But even if the Mayor were to follow the approach, in fact, he would be taking only a very limited step towards the wisdom of the unconventional approach, in fact, on its own it can end up as little more than "shrewd administractive technique" for routine antipoverty efforts.

It can solve much of the problem of "who to deal with"--and also the problem of "how to choose." But it does not solve the problem of "where to get the money." Nor does it speak directly, in its limited form, to a number of central issues of community participation, control, initiative and democracy.

But were the Mayor really inter- ested in change--and were he willing to experiment--he would see a great opportunity to begin to deal with such issues, too, right before his eyes this very moment.

One results of the riots, of course, is that whether they like it or not, white businessmen in the black community are becoming more and more interesting in selling their stores and factories to black residents of the community.

There are also adequate resources available, from banks, insurance companies, and the business community, to help the community buy these businesses at a fair price--and indeed to help the community establish new businesses, like the EG&G Company, as well.

There is no difficulty in raising funds for such purposes--for the businesses are not hand-out welfare operations like the poverty program but sound profit-making enterprises. They pay back loans--and banks know it. A loan to transfer ownership of a profitable business is relatively easy to arrange, given the present climate. (And new government aid programs are also available.)

The conventional approach of both the black and white communities is simply to arrange to let black entrepreneurs buy these businesses now. This is, of course, very much in the ordinary business tradition, and will probably occur.

The difficulty with the conventional approach, again, is that it passes up a tremendous opportunity for innovation. Once businesses are handed to black entrepreneurs, they, of course, will begin to pocket the profits made from doing business in the community. This is all well and good from the conventional standpoint.

But it means the profits will end up helping only a tiny handful of entrepreneurs--not the community at large. The approach will lead to their personal enrichment, and to their abandonment of the community from which they came.

There is a triple tragedy in this. Most important, it will mean the flight of profits out of the community -- probably into the suburbs as soon as the black entrepreneur can afford to use the profits to buy a split-level. It will also mean the loss of the entrepreneur's talent--for his creative skill will go into making his own fortune, not into helping the community.

And finally, it will mean the loss of an opportunity to develop real resources for the community's own self-help effort.

Everyone knows the poverty program has been cut back--and will in all likelihood continue to be reduced by Congress. There is little hope that serious resources from Washington will be forthcoming in the near future.

But the profits of the business already in the community (and new ones as well) are already at hand.