Because changes in design needed to save the two buildings--at 134 Mt. Auburn St. and 3 Mt. Auburn Place--would be costly, there was speculation that Harvard would fight the commission's designation of the structures as "historically significant."

But only a month later, Harvard officials agreed to preserve the buildings by altering the University Place design, and on January 8 the historical commission accepted the new plan without objection, cleaning the way for Corporation approval of the massive development later that month. About 40 neighborhood residents attending the commission meeting broke into applause when Donald Lang one of those who had negotiated the compromise plan with Harvard, thanked University officials for their cooperation.

And Tudor C. Ingersoll, head of the residents negotiating committee said the agreement was "terrific". The neighbors are all breathing a sign of relief" Ingersoll said.

Early in the spring. Harvard's developer for University Place broke ground for the project in a ceremony attended by happy community residents and happy University administrators and happy Cambridge politicians.

Case-2-The Despotic Giant

During the winter months of 1981 members of the then newly formed Harvard Tenants Union spent hundreds of hours compiling an energy usage survey of tenants in Harvard owned buildings. The survey finding based on responses from tenants in 124 apartments demonstrated a "gross form of mismanagement by Harvard Real Estate, according to HTU members Turk explained that Harvard could cut fuel costs simply by criminating waste, performing routine maintenance, and obtaining quantity discounts on fuel. These measures, Turk said, were likely to generate lower rents for Harvard tenants.

Administrators at Harvard Real Estate never responded to the conclusions of the survey. But soon after the study was released, HRI began its own program of major renovations installing, among other things, expensive thermopane windows to reduce energy usage in several Harvard buildings.

In January 1982 more than one-third of the tenants in one of the largest Harvard-owned apartment buildings voted to deny access to their homes to University workmen seeking to install the new energy-saying windows. More than 30 tenants in the 9-13a Ware St. building said they opposed the University's plans because the thermopane windows would increase their rents by up to $120 per month while other energy-saying measures would probably cut rents.

Harvard proceeded with its plans through the winter despite tenant opposition, and a series of disputes between HRE and Ware St. residents followed. In February, two Ware St. residents reported that they were considering filing charges against HRE for allegedly entering their apartments against their will to install the thermopane windows. A month later the city's building commissioner ordered Harvard to stop working over stairs in the Ware St. building without adequate safety precautions. And finally, towards the end of March, a Ware St. tenant and an HRE worker charged each other with assault and battery in separate criminal complaints. The charges stemmed from an argument between the two men over safety precautions for the window renovation project. The Ware St. tenant, who had served as a spokesman for his protesting neighbors, was also threatened by HRE with eviction for "any further conduct by you which interferes with legitimate interests of Harvard." The criminal charges between the tenant and the HRE employee were dropped by mutual agreement later in March.

Harvard completed the window installation in April and is awaiting a rent control hearing June 22 on its request for rent increases generated by the renovations. While agreeing to allow the final stages of the project to proceed. Ware St. residents served notice that they will oppose the rent increases at the board meeting. And the Harvard Tenants Union has asked the rent board for a ruling on Harvard's right to enter tenants apartments to conduct repairs.

The board hearing later this month will be attended by unhappy tenants, unhappy representatives of Harvard, and will be watched closely by several unhappy Cambridge politicians.

* * *

The Ware St. story was one of the longest running, but by no means the only, example of Harvard's reluctance to reform its relations with tenants in many of the buildings in a portfolio of 258 properties that together are worth more than $100 million. Some other notable examples include.

* HRE attorney Erickson's appearance under what tenants called false pretenses at two HTU or ganizing meetings. Erickson was subsequently investigated by the Board of Overseers of the Massachusetts Bar for allegedly using a false name and address at the open meetings, where litigation that he would later participate in was discussed HTU leaders charged Erickson with "improper behavior," but the attorney said he attended the meetings "to speak to tenants and to listen to their concerns." A Harvard spokesman said that Vice President for Community and Government Affairs Robin Schmidt gave "ultimate approval" for the idea of sending Erickson to the meetings;

* Wilkins' about-face on his promise to make a public disclosure of the Overseers' investigation into Harvard's real estate practices. While revealing in April that a written report would not be issued. Wilkins, a Justice on the Supreme Judicial Court, said that such a report "might be warranted, but to rake over the coals and assess blame isn't as important in the long run" as working quietly behind the scenes to resolve differences. Several tenant leaders and elected officials agreed with City Councilor David Sullivan, who explained that "informal discussions are not public, and so there is no accountability on the part of the University and a lack of being able to be pinned down on specifics";