So far, six University officials have accepted invitations from President Bok to serve on the board, including Edward Lashman, director of external projects, George Putnam Jr. '49, Harvard treasurer, and Robin Schmidt, vice president for government and community affairs, plus Wyatt, Zeckhouser and O'Brien. The board will basically serve as a liason to the University, while the corporation members will be responsible for the actual management, Wyatt says, justifying the fact that none of the board members is specially trained in real estate.
At this time, no officials in the present real estate department have been invited to join the board of directors, says Wyatt. The corporation was Wyatt's idea completely, and he expects that most of the six or seven senior officials in the present real estate department will have the option of joining the corporation. Some of them may prefer to look elsewhere for employment, because the nature of their jobs in the new system will be quite different. "They shouldn't consider the corporation a threat. I had no plans to make anyone feel threatened by the loss of their job," Wyatt says, adding that he doesn't expect that anyone will be sent a notice informing them to leave their offices by a certain date. Wyatt says that he consulted several senior real estate department officials before creating the new corporation, and he does not think the announcement should have surprised anyone.
Although the idea of a corporation may seem logical to Wyatt and other University officials who see it as a better way to manage Harvard's real estate, the proposition still remains a mystery to many within the University and the community. Both Russell E. Hill, director of Real Estate, and Miller decline to comment on specifics concerning the motives for forming the corporation, largely because they don't know them. They say they were kept in the dark throughout Zeckhouser's year-long evaluation. Norman C. Winchester, manager of residential property, also declines to comment, saying, "I really know nothing more than what has already been published." Winchester cites both his present state of ignorance about the proposal, and his intention to apply for a position in the new corporation, as reasons for making no statement at the present time. Several other members of the department could not be reached for comment at all last week. The atmosphere surrounding the announcement is one of shock on the part of others. They are being "temporarily inconvenienced," in the words of one administrator, and say they will be more willing to discuss the situation after they have acquired other jobs.
The community's reaction has also been one of surprise and questioning. Cambridge Mayor Thomas W. Danehy comments, "I remember reading something about it in the newspaper. But tell me, what are they trying to do? Why can't they accomplish the same thing within a department?" Danehy adds that he is probably not the best person to discuss Harvard's landlord practices in Cambridge, because he just doesn't know what's been going on. Cambridge City Councilor David C. Wylie, however, offers both optimistic and pessimistic speculations on what Harvard's new system could mean for the city. "Maybe it will be a good thing to have a central office with which the city can negotiate with Harvard," Wylie says. He adds that all members of the Cambridge City Council seem to believe now that Harvard's expansion in Cambridge should cease. "This could be an era of unprecedented cooperation if this central office is willing to negotiate with us. Perhaps the city could stop viewing Harvard as a necessary evil and Harvard could stop viewing the city as a constant harassment. But if this office views itself as some cold and calculating center, running property for profit, it could be trouble," Wylie adds.
Many Cambridge residents regard the University as being in the real estate business for profit. Although most rents are at the market level, Harvard owns an estimated $8 million worth of tax-exempt property in Cambridge, and makes a $507,000 in-lieu-of-tax payment. The situation in Boston is similar, except that Harvard pays no in-lieu-of-tax payment there and the value of exempt property is twice as high--an estimated $16 million. Harvard has not yet decided whether the corporation will handle Boston properties. The most publicized complaints, from Boston Fair Share and Cambridge community groups, focus on the University's failure to pay taxes. But Harvard's tenants worry about their buildings' maintenance, or about possible eviction should Harvard decide to construct a new building, or convert a house into a day care center.
"Everybody has the feeling that Harvard will take over the whole neighborhood eventually," says Adam Artis, a resident at 9 Sacramento Place, who has lived in his Harvard-owned twofamily house for five years. Lydia Enos, a neighbor of Artis, several years ago refused to sell her house to Harvard buyers. She says she is very fond of her neighborhood, and had no interest in selling, despite the high prices; Harvard offered. Wylie says that Harvard's tenants' fears that their homes were purchased for landbanking purposes is legitimate.
Whether or not the Harvard Real Estate Corporation is planning to deal directly with the community, via a special community relations officer, is still under discussion, Wyatt says. Michael Brewer, director of government relations, expects that his office will continue to field the complaints and community concerns, as it has done over the years. Brewer handled the oversight at 58 Garfield St., and says that similar incidents have occurred in the past, and in all likelihood will occur on occasion again in the future.
At the present time, though, it appears that the Harvard Real Estate Corporation is primarily concerned with cleaning up the financial side of Harvard's real estate business. The accounting office should be established by July 1, and after the dust settle, perhaps other motives for forming the corporation will become clearer.