Finally, Harvard and MIT should help to expand the non-university housing supply in Cambridge--not because they owe that to the City, and not in a spirit of largesse--but simply because they resources to do it that no one else in the City has, and a clear responsibility to use them. MIT has already begun that process, although many details of the proposal that has been announced must be clarified before the City can evaluate it and help to implement it. We hope, and expect that Harvard will reveal soon how it intends to participate.

The private real estate industry also has a role to play, although it must be carefully defined and neither exaggerated non underrated. The primary incentive of business is return on investment--and the cost constraints inherent in the provision of low and moderate-income housing do not leave much room for profit. What the real estate industry can do is to build housing units, because developers and contractors have done it over and over again, and have expertise at it. The industry also has access to private mortgage money, which is required because there simply is not enough public money to support an adequate rate of construction. To be able to tap that expertise and those financial resources, we must pay the costs--in the form of fees, profits, or tax incentives to private builders. There are Federal and State programs to do that, and they involve the cooperation of City. We are willing and eager to provide it, as long as it means more or better units produced, and not merely larger margins of return for investors.

There must be commitments from the real estate industry in return, however, besides willingness to participate in programs which provide a guaranteed, and reasonable, rate of return. We will expect, and require, of any developer who needs the cooperation of the City in building Federally supported housing, that a substantial number of the units to be built be made available to low income families through either rent supplements or leasing to the Housing Auhtority. To make that possible, cost of building in the first place must be limited, since there are cost constraints in both subsidy programs. Builders of housing which will rent at full market levels must understand, while the City recognizes their right to produce middle-income or luxury housing and understands the desire of families with adequate incomes to live in Cambridge, that such housing must clearly have the lowest priority in terms of public funds, energy or involvement. This is not because one group of residents is less important than the other. It is simply because they need less help, and have a better chance of having their needs met in the market. All builders or owners of private housing, at whatever rent levels, must also recognize that under no conditions is there any justification for taking advantage of the tight market to make excessive profits by capitalizing on the need of all our citizens for a home.

This brings me to the question of rent control, which has been so much before this City Council in recent weeks. I'm sure there is no need to say again how aware my office is of the seriousness of this problem of unreasonable increases in rent.

First let us acknowledge that the fundamental problem is an inadequate supply of housing at a time when the demand is unusually high. But let's be precise about that. More luxury housing will not relieve the pressure on the low income housing market in Cambridge. The "Filter down" theory simply does not work here. More construction of subsidized low income housing will help and that is a public responsibility on which my staff is presently hard at work.

IT IS CLEAR, however, that any new housing will not be available for at least two more years, and we must do something immediately. I think that "something" must aim as precisely as possible at the core of the problem. We must control the unreasonable rise of rents with a tool that deals with those rents directly.

The City Council has had before it in recent weeks a rent control ordinance proposed by the Cambridge Housing Convention. I am certain that the City Council will weigh and evaluate the proposal before it in the light of the present housing crisis and the need to control the unreasonable and excessive rises in rents.

Another important piece of the machinery which shapes housing in Cambridge are the regulatory codes. At this point in time, we are only able to enforce our housing code--which applies to buildings after they are built--with respect to conditions which seriously endanger health and safety. To enforce it more strictly would reduce the available housing stock, particularly in the critical low rent brackets. We don't want any of our citizens living in unsafe or unhealthy housing, but to force a family out of housing units because there are no screens, or because lighting is inadequate seems absurd in the context of our present crisis.

We also, have a building code in Cambridge, which regulates the construction of new buildings. If we are to encourage innovative new methods of constructing lower cost housing, we must adopt a "performance standard" building code, specifically the BOCA code which has received considerable national attention and has already been adopted by a number of localities. This code, rather than limiting construction to a select few methods, sets up minimum standards of strength, durability and safety. Then any system of building which meets those standards can be accepted for use in the city. It is an inclusive rather than exclusive code. It is my feeling that we must be inclusive in an effort to explore every avenue that will drive down the cost of housing or expand the safe possible alternatives for increasing our housing stock.

The Building Commissioner has at my request ordered a number of copies of the BOCA Code which will in the next few weeks be presented to a committee of Architects and Builders for review during the summer with the intention of proposing any amendments or recommendations that will make it more adaptable for the City of Cambridge. When their report is received it will be presented to the City Council for their consideration.

There is another tool which the City has at its disposal to assist in the provision of housing for low and moderate income families--urban renewal. In the past, urban renewal has often been a dirty work in our city and many others. But that need not be the case. Urban renewal provides a critical element in the process of providing more reasonably priced housing--it reduces the cost of assembling and preparing property for redevelopment or rehabilitation. There are new, more flexible renewal procedures such as Neighborhood Development Program and the advance availability of rehabilitation funds for future renewal or code enforcement areas.

In the past, a barrier to using renewal tools has been the justifiable suspicion on the part of the community of urban renewal being used "on" them. If we are to take advantage of renewal, we must wipe out these suspicions. I therefore recommend that the council adopt as a matter of public policy a procedure which will allow the approval of residential renewal projects only after a policy committee, composed solely of residents of the project areas, with full veto powers over the plans, approves those plans. It is in this manner, and only in this manner that we can establish the kinds of trust and rapport that must exist if urban renewal is to work for the citizens of Cambridge whom we serve.

TONIGHT we have placed a wide range of facts about the housing situation in Cambridge before you and I have touched on my feelings about progress we can make in a number of areas related to housing. Much of this has come from the work of the Task Force on the Housing Crisis which I called together in early April. A special committee of that Task Force is now at work developing a specific implementation plan for the 1500 units of various types of publicly subsidized housing now allocated to the City, and in planning for new applications for more such units.

Among the things which have become clear to us in the past months of intense work on the housing problem is the need for strengthening the Citys entire housing development and maintenance capacity. The Ford Foundation funded study, still in progress, is pointing toward assembling all housing-related functions is one agency responsible to the City Manager. I believe this is a good direction to move in, and if the report is adopted I will recommend its implementation as soon as possible.

If we are to be successful in resolving the housing crisis in the City it is absolutely imperative that all cooperate and coordinate their activities toward that end. None can afford the luxury of standing idly pointing the finger of criticism at somebody else. If you are not part of the solution then you are port of the problem.

In closing--I would like to emphasize that I have been extremely impressed by the sincere efforts of so many citizens who are concerned, interested and willing to participate to help their community become a better place to live for all its citizens. With the government and the people working together we can't help but succeed